IMPORTANT NOTICE
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 child[ren] and members of their [or his/her] family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court
Case No: HU14C09009.
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN HULL
AND IN THE MATTER OF IG
Date: Wednesday, 22 October 2014.
Before: HHJ Pemberton
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	HCC	Applicant	
	- and -		
	    JK (1)
 JG    (2)
 IG    (3)
DK (4)	

Respondents	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Morton for the LA
Mr Lee for the Mother (JK)
Miss Garland for the Father (JG)
Mr Hunter for the maternal grandmother (DK)
Miss Houghton for the Child (IG)
Hearing dates: 9th and 10th October 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
APPROVED JUDGMENT
1.	This is a finding of fact hearing in relation to IG born on the 28th June 2013 and now 20 months old.
2.	 Hull City Council (‘the LA’) currently holds an interim care order in respect of IG and there are ongoing assessments to establish whether he can be returned to the care of his parents or other family members.  Final decisions are due to be made by the court on the 10th and 11th and 12th December. This matter is listed before me for a 2 day fact finding hearing to establish whether the concerns raised in respect of the maternal grandmother, DK, are valid.
Background history
1.	In the early hours of 15th July 2013, IG was presented at Hull Royal Infirmary.  His parents were concerned about swelling to his right leg.  On examination, an oblique fracture of his right femur was identified.  At this time IG was 17 days old.  The hospital staff were concerned in respect of the nature of the injury and the lack of explanation from the parents as to how the injury had occurred.  They instigated child protection procedures and the parents were arrested and interviewed later that night.  IG was discharged from hospital to the care of his paternal grandparents, Kevin and Karen G on the 31st July 2013.  He was then moved in a planned way to the care of his maternal grandparents, DK and PK on the 6th August 2013.  This placement was subject to child protection agreements dealing with the need to supervise the parents contact.  I pause to note at this stage that PK and DK were approved foster carers for the LA and had been fostering for a number of years
2.	Concerns developed in relation to DK and PK which now form the basis of the schedule of findings I am invited to make.  In more general terms, these concerns related to :-
a.	PK’s mental health and alcohol use  and the impact of this on the children in the household
b.	PK and DK inappropriately sharing information with children in their care 
c.	An allegation in relation to a  previous incident when DK and her daughter DC had forcibly removed DK’s granddaughter from the care of her mother and had assaulted the child’s mother in the process
d.	DK’s apparent inability  to accept that her daughter may have in any way have been responsible for the injury sustained by IG and a failure to properly supervise contact
3.	IG was moved to the care of his paternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs G on the 10th October 2013.  Sadly, they reported being unable to cope with the demands involved in caring for IG and on the 29th January 2014 IG was moved to the care of his maternal aunt – HC.  Unfortunately, there were further issues involved in that family placement and IG was actually moved to foster care on the 23rd September 2014.  
4.	There was a delay in the issue of these proceedings due to the LA attempts to manage matters and keep IG in a family placement.  Whilst such attempts were commendable, it has caused unfortunate delay in terms of outcomes.  I would urge the local authority in cases where there is an alleged non accidental injury to consider issuing proceedings promptly so that a factual basis for risk assessments and plans can be established. These proceedings were in fact issued on the 4th March 2014.  A fact finding hearing was timetabled and set up for June 2014.  District Judge Richardson heard evidence on the 17-20 June 2014 and handed down a judgment on the 24th June.  That judgement appears in the bundle at B35.  The significant findings that District Richardson made were as follows:-
a.	District Judge Richardson did not accept the evidence of DK that she had heard a scream when IG was being examined by the GP and found that this suggestion had been arrived at through discussion between DK and JK and JG.  Her judgement does not indicate whether she found this to be a deliberate conspiracy which is a finding that the LA now invites me to make.  
b.	She found that neither parents’ account could be relied upon and that the fracture to IG's leg was caused by one or both of the parents and was caused by the application of significant force.  She went on to find that if one of the  parents had not perpetrated the injury then they had failed to protect IG from harm caused by the other and this failure to protect was continuing in their failure to tell the truth.
5.	Ideally, the case would have been dealt with by DJ Richardson given her significant previous involvement but unfortunately she is absent from work due to ill health and the case has therefore passed to me
6.	DK has put herself forward as a potential long term carer for her grandson.  During the course of the proceedings a number of assessments have been carried out.  An independent social worker was appointed to prepare a social work assessment of DK.  She is Victoria McMellon.  Her report is dated the 9th July 2014 and appears at E65 of the bundle.  It is a comprehensive report.  She sees strengths and weaknesses in DK’s ability to care for IG.  She recommended a psychological assessment of DK.
7.	The parties jointly instructed Dr Mark Gresswell to prepare the psychological assessment on DK.  His report dated the 12th August 2014 appears at E107 of my bundle.  Again it is a lengthy and comprehensive report.  Within that report he notes the differing accounts between the LA and DK in relation to four areas of concern – which he labels:-
a.	The incident with YC when it is recorded that DK and her daughter HC had removed DK’s granddaughter from the care of YC, it is alleged that a degree of force was used
b.	Not reporting PK’s attempted hanging
c.	JL and the Compensation conversation -Inappropriate discussions with or in the presence of  the foster son JL as to the injury to IG and a potential claim for compensation against the GP and then “bullying” of JL to get him to retract his disclosure
d.	Leaving IG with JK and JG-A failure to properly supervise IG in the care of his parents
8.	Dr Gresswell concludes (inter alia) that if these events have credibility then DK’s suitability as a foster carer must be open to question.  The necessity for this fact finding  hearing therefore is to specifically address S1(3)(b), (e) and (f) of the welfare checklist of the Children Act 1989, namely to assess the needs of IG and whether DK is capable of meeting his needs and any harm that he has suffered or is at risk of suffering. 
The law
Standard of proof
9.	The LA seeks the findings in respect of DK.   The burden of proving those findings rests entirely with them.  It is not for DK to prove her innocence in these matters. The standard of proof is the civil standard; that is the balance of probability. In Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, at para 70 Baroness Hale said that she would
‘. …announce loud and clear that the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold under section 31(2) or the welfare considerations in section 1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies…’
Evaluating the evidence
10.	In arriving at its conclusion the court is under a duty to evaluate the totality of the evidence. In Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] 2 FLR 838, at para [33] Butler-Sloss P made the point that evidence  
‘cannot be evaluated in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases has to 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 put forward by the LA has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.’
11.	A similar point was made by Bracewell J in Re B (Threshold Criteria: Fabricated Illness) [2004] 2 FLR 200 at para 24:
‘ …Although the medical evidence is of very great importance, it is not the only evidence in the case. Explanations given by carers and the credibility of those involved with the child concerned are of great significance. All the evidence, both medical and non-medical, has to be considered in assessing whether the pieces of the jigsaw form into a clear convincing picture of what happened.’
Truth and lies
12.	Finally, I remind myself of a point made in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything.   I remind myself specifically of this direction given that District Judge Richardson has already made findings that DK lacked credibility in the evidence that she gave at the fact finding hearing earlier this year.  Whilst I take that into account I do not start from the basis that DK is dishonest and therefore I cannot rely on any of her evidence. 
Hearsay evidence
13.	Some of the evidence that the local authority relies upon is hearsay.  This is due to the fact that 2 of the allegations come from 2 of the former foster children that were in DK's care (TM and JL).  I accept that the best evidence is first hand direct evidence from the person who witnessed the events reported.  However, I am entitled to take hearsay evidence into account  but must  consider the weight that I place on it.  In considering the weight I place on the conversation reported with JL and TM I have in particular considered the following issues:- 
(a)whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness;
(b)whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matters stated;
(c)whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay;
(d)whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters;
(e)whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another or for a particular purpose;
(f)whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight.
The evidence
14.	I have read all of the first 2 bundles.  The third bundle contains medical records in relation to the injury sustained by IG.  I have not read those documents as they are not relevant to this fact finding hearing.  I have also had helpful written submissions from advocates for the LA, DK and the child, which I have considered with care.
15.	I have heard from a limited number of witnesses in relation to these narrow issues concerning DK.  The first witness was Helen McClane.  Ms McClane is a social worker.  Her evidence relates to the first finding sought by the LA .
16.	Ms McClane was on duty on the 7th October when she received notification from a fostering worker, Ms Conyers of an incident that had occurred the previous night.  Ms Conyers reported that she had been notified by DK that she and her daughter HC had had to remove YK  (DK’s granddaughter) from the care of her parents as YK’s mother had been reported to have taken drugs.  In a further update it was reported that there had been a Domestic violence incident between SK and his partner YC and that DK had collected YK and cared for her with parents’ permission and cared for her overnight.
17.	Further discussions with the police cast doubt on whether in fact YC had given permission and also whether YC had been incapable of caring for YK.  The view reported by the police was that YK would have been returned that evening were it not for the late hour and the fact that she was by this time settled in the care of DK.
18.	At a meeting later that day YC herself reported that she had been assaulted by HC in the presence of DK and Ms McClane reports having herself seen small red marks on YC’s wrists.  YC also reported that she had not given her consent to her daughter being removed.  She stated (and was supported by her friend in this) that she had not been buying cannabis but that she had accompanied a friend to buy cannabis.
19.	I am not asked to make findings against HC, neither party has called YC to support either account.  I note therefore that the LA evidence is hearsay and this must impact on the weight that I place on it
20.	However, there is not a huge amount of difference in the account given by Ms McClane and the account given by DK.  The main differences are whether YC was indeed under the influence of drugs and whether she gave consent to DK removing YK.  It is apparent that some force was used as reported by DK to Dr Gresswell when she tells him, HC pinned her against the wall “to calm her down” although I note that in her statement to this court she describes this in much more gentle terms  as “HC grabbed YC and the pram to stop them falling.  HC then tried to calm YC down”.
21.	The relevance of this incident is in terms of DK’s judgment.  Ms McClane’s view was that she would have expected DK to contact the police or EDT rather than to take direct action herself.  She had had training and was an experienced foster carer.  When asked in cross examination by Mr Hunter whether the actions of DK on that night were justified, Ms McClane responded that the “reasons may be but the method – no”
22.	The next witness was Liza Dhamrait who gave evidence in relation to the incident involving the foster child JL and the “compensation claim”.  JL, who was aged 9 at the relevant time,  is described as quite disturbed, holding onto the belief that he would return to his mother’s care.  Ms Dhamrait, as his newly allocated social worker, had to assess his needs and advices him that such reunification was not possible.  She told me that after having had that difficult discussion with him she moved on to asking about his foster home by way of trying to make the conversation more light-hearted.  JL had told her that the doctor had hurt IG and they were going to get compensation.  JL told Ms Dhamrait that he had not heard the word “compensation” before.  She records in her statement that he had asked DK what it meant and she had told him that “you tell them how much money you want and they give it to you”.
23.	Ms Dhamrait had raised this issue with DK who had responded that JL was “lying”.  DK asked that she see JL with Ms Dhamrait and Ms Dhamrait records, and told me that she asked him 3 times “you have not heard about compensation in this house have you”.  JL did not answer the first two times and on the third time of asking responded “no”.  Ms Dhamrait told me that she did not really feel that JL was given an opportunity to answer openly.
24.	JL’s behaviour was difficult and deteriorated further following this incident.  It is not clear whether this is due to his understanding that a return to his mother was not possible or due to problems in his foster home.  On the 10th October 2013, JL reported to the social worker at school that PK was leaving the house and not coming back.  He reported that PK was doing annoying stuff and that DK and PK were arguing last night.
25.	JL was removed from PK and DK’s home the following day after information in relation to PK’s apparent suicide attempt had come to light.
26.	Ms Dhamrait also gave evidence in relation to the allegation that DK had failed to properly supervise when Ms Dhamrait and her colleague attended on the 5th September.  She told me that this was against a background of DK feeling unfairly criticised and picked on by the social worker.  Ms Dhamrait wanted to try to clear the air.  She described attending with her colleague to find DK and JK and JG putting IG into the car.  DK invited the 2 social worker into the house; Ms Dhamrait told me that DK gave no thought to the need for JK and JG to be supervised with IG.  Ms Dhamrait reported that she asked her colleague to remain outside to  supervise the contact.  It was put to her in cross examination that DK had very quickly been aware that the second social worker would remain outside with IG and his parents.  Ms Dhamrait maintained that DK had not heard her ask Sally to remain outside and therefore had not ensured appropriate arrangements were in place for IG.
27.	The final LA witness that I heard from was Catherine Lacy who gave evidence in relation to the allegation that PK had attempted to hang himself and that this had been witnessed by another foster child, TM, who had released PK from the belt that he was attempting to hang himself with.
28.	She confirmed the contents of her statement and the way in which the information in relation to this apparent suicide attempt had come to light (through a phone call from TM’ sister to Ms Lacey).  She confirmed that she had spoken to TM’s friend’s mother who reported that TM had arrived at her home whilst she was at work.  He was apparently crying and reported what he had witnessed.  TM’s friend was alarmed by this news and did not know how to respond so rang his mum for advice.
29.	She was clear that in her discussions with TM, he had been keen to avoid getting DK into any trouble.  He had enjoyed his time with her and had been there for a year.  He had not been settled in his previous foster placement.  He reported wanting to speak to DK when he returned later that night but that she did not want to talk to him and had told him he was grounded (for going out).  He was finally able to tell her what had happened the following day when she then responded with anger towards her husband and told him he must leave.  There is no suggestion in the written or oral evidence of Ms Lacy that DK had told TM not to tell anyone.
30.	It was put to Ms Lacy that TM had in effect told her 3 different versions of event, the first that nothing had happened, the second that was reported third hand by TM’ friend’s mother that TM had had to cut PK down and the third which came direct from TM that he had had to unfasten the belt.  Ms Lacy did not think there was any real difference in those last two accounts.
31.	The final witness was DK.  DK gave evidence in a calm manner and was at times understandably distressed by what she was recounting.  She began her evidence by stating clearly that she now believes that JK and JG caused the injury to IG.  She told me that she had now read all of the paperwork and had talked to her social worker about the injury.  She told me that in her heart of hearts she had wanted to believe that the Doctor had caused the injury.  She said that she had asked JK and JG on a number of occasions whether they had injured IG and they both continued to deny this.
32.	I pause here to record that whilst DK was giving this evidence I was able to observe JK and JG.  Neither of them seemed surprised or distressed by the evidence that DK was giving. In fact, both appeared to be almost smirking.  I was left with the clear impression that they knew the evidence that DK was going to give.  I will come back to the relevance of that later in this judgement.
33.	DK gave her evidence in relation to the allegations.  She told me that in relation to her granddaughter YK, she had acted as a grandmother rather than a foster carer.  In cross examination about the implications of this she responded that she did not want to involve the police in what was a family issue.  She distinguished the situation for IG as he is a looked after child, and whilst YK had been known to the LA, she was not looked after. During the course of her evidence, DK disclosed that both her son SK and her daughter in law YC were drug users and that SK had been taking drugs that night (something that does not appear to have been mentioned previously).  She accepted that during the course of this incident, HC had indeed restrained YC by grabbing her hands whilst YC was up against a wall.  She told me that YC had messed up the home although acknowledged that this was hard to determine the full extent as the home was “quite a mess anyway”.
34.	In relation to the allegation that JL had overheard her discussion the doctor causing the injury to IG's leg and the issue of compensation, she was adamant that JL had overheard a conversation that she had with her father in which they had discussed the doctor having caused the injury but that compensation was never mentioned in this context.  She told me that JL had seen an advert on TV for compensation and had asked what it meant.  He’d also talked about his mum claiming compensation as she had been stabbed by his father.
35.	She denied that she had “bullied him” when asking him about the allegations and instead reported that she had asked him only once, in a calm manner where he had got the information from.  He had responded that he had overheard the phone call about the broken leg but reported that the information in relation to compensation he reported that he had got the information from “nowhere”.  In her account of this incident to Dr Gresswell, DK makes the initial assertion about JL having seen an advert for compensation on TV and asking what it meant and also about relating compensation to the injury his mother had sustained at the hands of his father.  If this is indeed correct then she would not have needed to ask him as she reports “where he had got the information about compensation from” and would have been able no doubt to recollect these conversations when she was spoken to by Liza Dhamrait on the 13th August 2014.  On balance, I prefer the account given by the social worker, acknowledging as I must that this is hearsay evidence in respect of what JL is reported to have said.  I find it an unlikely thing for JL to have made up, given his loyalty to DK and his clear affection for her.  I also find DK’s account of her questioning of JL inconsistent given her account that JL had discussed compensation with her when hearing the word on the television and also when discussion his own mothers potential claim.  If indeed this is where JL had first heard about compensation then I would have expected DK to recollect this when she was specifically asked about conversations relating to compensation.
36.	In cross examination DK did acknowledge that this was a very difficult and stressful time for herself and her family and that she perhaps had a hazier than usual recollection of events at this time.  She acknowledged that she was not functioning at her best.  However, she was very clear in reporting to me what she did and did not discuss with her father and the conversations she had had with JL around that time.  I do not accept her account as to how JL came to know about compensation and also about how he was challenged by her about his disclosure.
37.	The third finding related to a conspiracy to blame Dr Xavier for the injury to IG in order to divert attention away from JK and JG.  The Oxford dictionary defines a conspiracy as “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful”.  It is not clear from the way the LA has pleaded this allegation who they say DK was conspiring with.  I note that District Judge Richardson has already made a clear finding that the suggestion that Dr Xavier might be put forward as having caused the injury to IG came about on either the 15th or 16th July when the parents were discussing events with DK. I am not prepared to go any further than that in terms of a finding.  This is a matter that should have been raised with DJ Richardson given that she had heard the evidence of all of the parties in terms of how the possibility of Dr Xavier having caused the injury had arisen.
38.	The fourth finding that the LA invites me to make is in relation to PK's attempted hanging.  It was not disputed by any party that PK had tied a belt around his neck in October 2013, which was witnessed by TM.  What was in issue was whether TM had told or attempted to tell DK about what he had witnessed and also TM’s own account as to what he had actually witnessed was challenged in terms of whether PK was simply sitting on the stairs with a belt around his neck or was in the process of attempting self strangulation by way of hanging.  DK told me she did not know about the incident until the social worker came round later the following day.  TM had reported to Ms Lacy that he had actually told DK about the incident on morning of the 10th October 2013.
39.	I have no doubt at all that what TM described to Ms Lacy is what he actually witnessed.  Again, I recognise this is hearsay evidence but there is detail in TM’s account to the social worker that adds real credibility to the account.  His description of walking in and out of the living room where DK sat – trying in some way to get attention for what was occurring on the stairs.  The description of PK walking down the stairs with the belt attached to his neck and then stopping moving.  The description of unfastening the belt from the banister and then holding PK’s  back so he did not fall back.  I find that TM witnessed a frightening and real attempt by PK to harm himself.  Mr Hunter invites me to find that the inconsistency in terms of whether TM “cut” PK down or untied him is significant.  I do not find that it is.  I note that the account of PK being cut down is the account that comes from  CF rather than from TM himself and again this will be third or fourth hand hearsay, reported to her by her son LF.  It is not disputed that TM attended at LF’s home and presented as upset and “crying”.  
40.	I then turn to consider whether TM did tell DK and whether she failed to react to the information.   The evidence from DK is that TM was trying to talk to her that morning but there was too much going on in the house and she did not have the time.  This in itself is worrying, given her description of the real tension in the house as she tells me she had already asked PK to leave.  However, I also have the description reported by the social worker from TM that when he did tell DK on the morning of the 10 October, she turned on PK and called him “an evil bastard and that no child should have to see something like that”.  She had then gone on to tell him to pack his bags and get out.  TM is again described as very loyal to DK.  DK contradicted herself somewhat in her evidence as she described that TM had had loads of opportunity to tell her which is not what is recorded in her statement.  On balance I find that TM did tell DK on the morning of the 10th October what he had witnessed the previous night and that she did respond with anger to her husband.  I do not however find that she had then deliberately withheld the information or warned TM not to say anything.  The explanation that I prefer is that DK was incredibly stressed and simply unable to give the children that she had responsibility for, the emotional responses that they needed.  I am not sure whether she was actually able to take in and process what TM had said and what the implications for him were.  She was caught up in the breakdown of her relationship with PK and the children’s needs were lost within this. I am concerned that the deterioration in the relationship and the presentation of PK and his increasing depression will have been having an impact on all of the children for some time and that DK was unable to extract herself from her own difficulties to consider the impact on the children that she was caring for, some of whom had no doubt already experienced very distressing incidents in their lives given the fact that they were already children in the care system.
41.	The final allegation related to IG being left unsupervised in the care of his parents. I am prepared to accept that if he was left unattended it was on a momentary basis and that the fact that 2 social workers were attending at DK's home, lead her to a reasonable expectation that they were overseeing the arrangements for IG.  DK says that she was about to ask PK to go out and supervise when she heard Ms Dhamrait ask her social worker colleague to take on the supervision of IG.  These conversations clearly happened in a matter of moments.  I don’t accept that this was a real breach of the agreement but is an example that when other issues are arising (in particular the difficult relationship that DK had with the social worker), it becomes far more difficult for DK to make immediate and safe decisions in relation to the children she is caring for.  

My findings
I set out below the findings that the LA invites me to make together with my findings in respect of each of those:-
1.	That on the 6th October 2011 DK and HC forcibly removed SK’s daughter YK from her mother, YC’s care. HC pinning YC  against the wall causing red marks to both YC’s wrists.
As a matter of fact it is found that DK and HC removed YK from both her parents care but I find that this was due to concerns for her welfare.  It is accepted by DK that HC physically restrained YC during this incident.  However, I do not find that DK’s  actions were unreasonable in all of the circumstances.  In my general observations I return to this finding.
2.	That DK discussed on the telephone, on the 9th August 2013, the possibility of seeking compensation for IG’s injuries by blaming Dr Xavier which was overheard by JL (foster child). DK denied this when questioned by the LA and bullied JL into saying he hadn’t heard the conversation.
In the light of my observations about the evidence of the  witnesses, I prefer the account of Liza Dhamrait and make this finding as drafted.
3.	That DK conspired to blame Dr Xavier for the injury to IG to divert attention away from either or both JK and JG.
I do not make any findings in relation to this allegation over and above the finding already made by DJ Richardson and recorded at paragraph 42 above.
4.	That on the evening of the 9th October 2013 DK failed to attend to the emotional needs of TM when he attempted to advise her of having found her husband PK on the stairs attempting to hang himself with a belt which TM had removed and left PK sitting on the stairs.  DK the following day blamed TM for not telling her and failed to report the incident to the LA.
I find that for a period leading up to October 2013 DK was unable to attend to the emotional needs of the children in her care due to the personal difficulties she was experiencing in relation to her marriage breakdown and her husbands depression and alcoholism.  She failed to disclose the difficulties she was experiencing at this time and failed to seek appropriate support.  She was unable to recognise the potential impact on the children that she was caring for, of remaining in a household whilst these difficulties were ongoing.  I find that TM did witness PK attempting to hang himself with a belt and that this incident caused TM great distress.  I find that TM did tell DK about this incident the following day but DK was unable to respond to TM’s needs appropriately due to her own emotional state at the time.  I note that Victoria McMellon, the independent social worker finds that “DK was overwhelmed with the responsibility of caring for the household and had lost perspective” and later in that same report “with hindsight, DK believes that she should have asked for JL and TM to be moved, at least into respite care”.
5. That on the 5th September 2013 DK left IG unsupervised in a car with both parents, in breach of her written agreement (08/08/13) to supervised contact at all times, and in doing so failed to safeguard his welfare.
I do not make this finding.
My general observations
42.	DK is clearly a loyal and caring woman.  She appears to me to be the figurehead of her family, the one to whom others go to solve their problems.  She obviously loves her children very much and she was clear in telling me that this includes SK, her nephew who she calls her son and whom she has cared for since he was 2.  She has also taken on the care of AJ and NC.
43.	What concerns me is that, as is inevitable in most families, her children and those she cares for have their own problems.  SK and his partner have clearly at times struggled to maintain  clean and tidy home conditions, have had relationship problems with domestic violence as a feature and have both used drugs on occasion (it is not clear to what extent) and SK has had a chequered history involving criminal activity and on occasion imprisonment; Daniel’s marriage has broken down and allegations have been made by his former partner that he had abused alcohol and been violent; PK has had periodic serious problems with alcohol abuse and depression and has been violent on one occasion; Dr  Gresswell reports that DK still loves PK and feels the need to support him as best she can; JK and her partner have been found to have caused a serious injury to their infant son.  
44.	The overwhelming impression I got of DK is that she will do all she can to protect and support her family, an admirable trait in many ways.  However, I worry that this fierce loyalty and protective instinct, can sometimes cloud her judgment and cause her to make unwise decisions, or to fail to seek appropriate support for fear of disclosing difficulties within her family.  It is this fierce loyalty that has lead to her struggling to accept the findings of the court and even now, despite her protestations that she does now accept that JK and or JG caused the injury to IG, I am worried that she is saying this as she knows she must say this if she is to have any chance of caring for her grandson.  I note that she was not saying this when she met with the ISW in July and Dr Gresswell was not convinced that she had any emotional engagement in the implications of JK having been found to have caused IG’s injuries.  I am worried that whilst DK reports that she does now accept the findings, she is simply saying what she knows she must.  The reaction of JK and JG to her evidence in my view adds weight to my concern  that she is simply saying this rather than believing it.  They seemed prepared that this is what she would say, did not seem distressed or shocked that the woman who had been fiercely loyal up to and  including the time of the fact finding hearing, has now changed her view.  I was left with the distinct impression that there had been discussion in advance as to the evidence that she would now be forced to give.  I do not find that DK sets out to deliberately mislead professionals or keep things from them, rather that her immense loyalty to her family leads her to find alternative ways of viewing things – as she told me, she wanted to believe that the doctor had injured IG.  This may have serious implications in terms of her ability to protect in the future and is something that the professionals will need to consider and in particular,  if and how DK can be supported to overcome those conflicting loyalties and demands, to enable her to prioritise IG’s needs.  No doubt the court will need to hear further evidence on this when it comes to disposal of these proceedings.