‘mild constipation’. iv) In simple terms A was constipated. It perhaps does not require medical advice to appreciate this will be associated with a level of dehydration and that rehydration will be part of the answer. But it is B’s summary of the event and the level of concern that fits with the medical view rather than that of the paternal family. Ultimately the medics did not consider A needed to be admitted or given medical treatment other than water and Calpol for pain relief. I understand that was already in hand. v) I am asked to consider the emotional behaviour of the parties during this time. I find B’s account of an over-dramatic performance on the part of the PGM to be credible. Such behaviour would fit with the narrative being given at the time to S of acute constipation and severe dehydration. The Aunt’s written evidence also fits with this conclusion. I find it likely the PGM was told to calm down. In the messaging [904 at 15:08] B recounts this event to S. I will return to this below. The key point I make is that it was B rather than the PGM/Aunt who was supported by the medical advice. vi) I do not find this evidence establishes neglect as alleged by S. I do not lose sight of the fact the child had just travelled internationally and was likely experiencing changes in diet. It is not particularly surprising that she may have experienced related digestion issues. Travel of this sort can be associated with hydration issues. But I note S passes the entire blame to B. No account appears to be given of his own role in ensuring his daughter has appropriate hydration. This is notwithstanding his case of being a hands-on father in all regards. Rather he launches (see below) into a full criticism of her role as A’s mother. vii) But what of the allegations made by B? A puzzling aspect of this case is that neither the PGM nor the Aunt detail anything relating to B’s allegation in their statements of evidence. On the papers it appeared there was a total difference of view in this regard. Yet this picture markedly changed through consideration of all the evidence. I note the following: a) I was shown messaging in which on the morning of the events B messages S complaining of being hit by his mother. There is other messaging in which she claims the PGM has threatened to kill her; b) In live evidence the PGM accepted this allegation was made on the day. She denied the truth of the same and explained there was no mention of it in her statement as she had focused on other matters; c) In live evidence the Aunt accepted she had been called by B (as claimed by B) and met B and A in the street. She told me B had ‘fled’ the home and alleged being hit by the PGM. She drove her back to the house; d) I note the discrepancy in B’s written evidence (and indeed in her live evidence until the conflict was pointed out) that she claimed both the punch and threat followed the paramedic leaving. viii) It is very clear B was making the allegation on the day in question. It is also clear on the day she was alleging being hit in the morning. The messaging to S puts this beyond doubt: [10:25] B: Your mother hit me with a full fist…I am calling police…This is madness…[A] was crying doing [poo] and she went out of her mind…FOR THE LOVE OF GOD ANSWER [10:27] S: Meeting B: She hit me…she hit me in the face with full fist…there is no valid excuse…I called [Aunt]…I am standing outside with [A]... [10:38] B: I can accept from you all the anger, but she cannot put a finger on me…I was holding [A] and she hit me in the face with a closed fist [11:37] S: You have successfully fucked up my meeting and embarrassed me in front of seniors B: I am not what you guys expected but I don’t insult her or punch in the face… S: I don’t need you to continue with your messages to disrupt my work further ix) I did not find the suggested importance of the conflict in evidence relating to the timing of the alleged assault helpful. I accept in written evidence B timed it post-paramedic in conflict with other evidence. However, this has to give way to the clear messaging on the day and the supporting evidence from the Aunt that she was told this on arrival (which fits with the messaging). In such circumstances this appears a simple error rather than anything of significance. x) However, there is potential significance in the absolute failure of either Aunt or PGM to recount these events in their statement evidence and it is a matter for consideration whether this is in any way linked with their exaggeration of the child’s presentation. I have to consider whether this might be an example of each seeking to distract me from a significant allegation. I found it difficult to accept the evidence of the PGM as to why this was not mentioned. I am less clear in the case of the Aunt who was called to give evidence and was not a party to the case. I bear in mind she added the details of the alleged assault without need for particular encouragement. xi) On balance I prefer the evidence of B over that of the PGM. I find B has given the consistent account and in the context of the relationships existing at the time I find it unlikely B would have been messaging S as she was if nothing untoward had happened. It is quite clear from the evidence of the Aunt that something happened to cause B to ‘flee’ the house with the A. In context no other explanation is given for this decision. In the context of the family relationships, it would be surprising if B were to have been making claims to the family if nothing had happened. I also bear in mind that the allegation is not overstated. The sense is the assault was more significant as to its fact rather than the level of the assault. B makes clear she was not hit particularly hard, the point was she had been hit. I have regard to the failure of the PGM to detail any account of this event notwithstanding it was this allegation that brought her into the proceedings. In her statement evidence she simply denies the allegation without any detail or surrounding context. It is difficult to understand why she did not provide a full account. In the circumstances of the case this adds weight to my conclusion. xii) I am asked to consider the alleged threat later in the day. Once again this is recorded in the messaging between B and S [905 at 15:37] ‘A is constipated and I am being hit and she is saying she will kill me…in front of A…I am calling the police to make a complaint because if something happens to me at least they will know…she is making a sign she will kill me, I am scared….’
‘faggot for a father does not mean you can live in my mum’s house and call her names…she cannot stay with you because you are a shit mother….you’re a piece of shit mother…you are negligent…because of you she is dehydrated…you retard…that is why she was constipated… the ambulance and the doctor diagnosed that she is dehydrated…therefore she is constipated…so you’re a shit mother…’
‘I don’t give a shit…just because you have a faggot for a father…does not mean you can live in [the PGM’s house] and call her names…’