“P has disclosed a consistent history of physical assault lasting over many years by her stepfather. She has been identified to have multiple scars on various parts of her body. There are reports of an excessive number of bruises on her face and cheek at School, although no further investigations were conducted. There is evidence of old remodelled fractures for which no medical treatment was sought by Mr E. There is also a history of a significant injury to her tooth, for which inaccurate accounts or inconsistent account have been given by Mr E and the Forensic Dentist has identified that it is not likely that the injury was caused by P biting into a gobstopper.” “In my opinion, if P’s account, which has been consistent, is believed by the Court to be true then, in my opinion, on the balance of probabilities, she suffered historical physical assaults, fractures, dental injury and medical neglect over many years while she was in Mr E’s care. In my opinion, if, while in supervised care, she remains healthy and well with no significant concerns about excessive bruising, bleeding or fractures without significant trauma then it is unlikely that she suffers from an organic disorder which can predispose her to injuries without significant trauma.”
“P has clearly being torn between desperation for a parental relationship with Mr E and in making attempts to seek his attention and affirmation, and wanting to speak out of her experiences in his care.”
“My recommendation is that Mr E's assessment is negative. I remain concerned regarding the physical and emotional harm experienced by both children within the care of Mr E, which they have both expressed clearly in their Achieving Best Evidence Interviews. Without the outcome of the fact-finding exercise, there remains concerns in respect of Mr E's parenting which includes his complete lack of ability to reflect and take on board professional observations, there is a clear disparity between the parenting B receives to the parenting P receives including emotional warmth and care. Both P and B have spoken about and expressed their fear whilst in the care of Mr E and it is extremely important to consider the emotional impact on both children if they were to return to Mr E's care, whereby there is a potential they would live in fear and always be wondering what will happen next. It is my view that Mr E would continue to blame P for the circumstances and expose both children to further harm through guilt of any experiences since June 2024, as this has been a continuous pattern throughout the assessment process.”
“I would be extremely concerned and have very serious reservations about the children being returned to Mr E’s care due to the likely risk of emotional and physical harm . I would therefore recommend a Care Order be granted to ensure comprehensive oversight and involvement from the Local Authority and other professionals, to be assured that P and B’s holistic needs are being met and the appropriate services and support is being provided.”
“If a legal rule requires facts to be proved, a judge must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are nought and none”
"[101B] …The range of facts which may properly be taken into account is infinite. Facts including the history of members of the family, the state of relationships within a family, proposed changes within the membership family, parental attitudes, and omissions which might not reasonably have been expected, just as much as actual physical assaults. They include threats, and abnormal behaviour by a child, and unsatisfactory parental responses to complaints or allegations. And facts, which are minor or even trivial if considered in isolation, taken together may suffice to satisfy the court of the likelihood of future harm. The court will attach to all the relevant facts the appropriate weight when coming to an overall conclusion on the crucial issue."
"What may be unexplained today may be perfectly well understood tomorrow. Until then, any tendency to dogmatise should be met with an answering challenge.” Case law has emphasised the importance of considering the possibility of an unknown cause. Lord Justice Moses in R v Henderson and Butler and others[2010] EWCA Crim. 126 stated at paragraph 1: "
"The temptation there described is ever present in family proceedings too and in my judgment should be as firmly resisted there as the courts are required to resist it in criminal law. In other words, there has to be factored into every case which concerns a discrete aetiology giving rise to significant harm a consideration as to whether the cause is unknown. That affects neither the burden nor the standard of proof. It is simply a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the causation advanced by the one shouldering the burden of proof is established.” At paragraph 19 he added a further observation: "
“i. the cause of an injury or an episode that cannot be explained scientifically remains equivocal. ii. recurrence is not in itself probative. iii. particular caution is necessary in any case where the medical experts disagree, one opinion declining to exclude a reasonable possibility of natural cause iv. the court must always be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation or amour proper is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice v. the judge in care proceedings must never experts or that scientific research will throw light into corners that are at present dark.”
“I also consider that the judge was in error in relation to the issues of propensity and hindsight bias. The question of propensity or similar fact evidence arises where an individual's behaviour in other circumstances makes it more likely that he will have behaved in the manner now alleged: see R v P (Children: Similar Fact Evidence)[2020] EWCA Civ 1088 ,[2020] 4 WLR 132 at [23]. In that case, the question was whether a's behaviour towards one partner was admissible in relation to allegations made by another partner. Here, the court was concerned with a sequence of events within the same family. Self-evidently, one finding about a parent's behaviour towards a child might be relevant to another similar allegation and there was no need to resort to the concept of propensity or to erect artificial barriers around the assessment of evidence. Similarly, the well-known concept of hindsight bias cannot deflect the court from making a common-sense assessment of the evidence as a whole, and I do not understand the judge's apprehension that the local authority was asking him to do something unusual or impermissible.”
“It is of course elementary that one should put to one side any notion that an unwillingness to place reliance on a child’s evidence of sexual abuse necessarily imputes bad faith to the child, its parents or any other interrogator. What the research has thrown into stark relief is quite simply that very young children do not appear to have the same clear boundaries between fact and fantasy as that which adults have learned to draw”
"To these matters I would only add that in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record-keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the accounts. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural - a process that might inelegantly be described as 'story-creep' - may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith."
“Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and… everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.”
“no reason to doubt their accounts. Their presentations are not inconsistent with such a history.”