England and Wales County Court (Family)

IN THE MILTON KEYNES DISTRICT REGISTRY OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF [THE CHILDREN ACT 1989]
AND IN THE MATTER OF A (A CHILD)

		30th July 2013

Introduction

1. The court is concerned with a child A, who was born on 19th March 2008 making him 5 years and nearly 4 months old. It is his welfare that is the court's paramount consideration and he is represented in these proceedings through his guardian, by Miss Graves of Counsel.
2. A is the son of B )"the father" and his former wife, C "the mother". . They are represented by Mr Wood of Counsel and Mr Samuels of Leading Counsel respectively.
3. A lives with his mother and currently has had contact with his father for two hours each week at a contact centre .
4. This is the final hearing of:-

Mother's application to review contact (initially her application under the inherent jurisdiction dated 23rd November 2012).

Father's deemed application for residence as reflected in the order of 17th December 2012, and

Mother's application for permission to remove A to another country, D dated 26th February 2013.

Background

5. I set out now a brief and, I hope, largely uncontroversial summary of this matter. The mother is 36 years old and is a citizen of country D. She qualified as a nurse in country D in or about 2004 and is a practising Mormon. She came to England in 1994 and between 1994 and 2006 she moved back and forth between country D and other countries living some of the time in country D then in England, Scotland, France, Switzerland and the United States of America for various periods of time. She currently lives in a town in the south of England
6. The father is 50 years old and was born in country, E coming to England as a 13 year old boy in 1976. He has lived in the United Kingdom for 36 years. Unlike the mother, he is not reported to be religious. It emerged in the ancillary relief proceedings that he owned nine properties and runs a jewellery business from a rental unit . The immediate paternal family live in the United Kingdom. His sister, her English husband and two children live in a city in eastern England , as do his uncle and aunt and his maternal grandmother. The paternal grandmother spends the majority of the year here and the rest of the time in country E .
7. The parties married on 21st July 2007 after a short period of living together; they had been in a relationship for some time before that. I note that the marriage broke down in or about 2010 and has now been dissolved. There is little doubt that the ancillary relief proceedings were acrimonious to say the least.
8. The father first applied for either residence or contact in June 2010 and a final residence order made to the mother with contact to the father on 15th December 2010. It seems that there were contact issues throughout 2011 and for part of 2012. The ancillary relief proceedings were resolved by DJ Rand on 7th December 2011.
9. Perhaps against the background of disputed contact the present proceedings arise from an application made by the mother in the Principal Registry on 23rd November 2012, seeking orders to suspend the previous contact order, and applying for A to be made a Ward of Court and for father to surrender his passport. The basis of that application was mother's stated fear that father would abduct A to country E .
10. Although the order made by me on 21st November 2011 had provided for weekly staying contact the father had not seen A since 14th October 2012 as the mother had raised allegations of sexual abuse against the father and subsequently refused contact. Those allegations were referred to Social Services and to the police who investigated them including conducting a medical examination. No sufficient evidence was found to support the allegations. At the outset Social Services had requested that contact be suspended but indicated that contact could be reinstated from 22nd November 2012 and it was against that background that the mother made her application to the Principal Registry on 23rd November.
11. At the Principal Registry Mrs Justice Parker made an ex parte order suspending contact and ordering the father to hand over A's passport, which he did.
12. On 27th November 2012 Mrs Justice Pauffley heard the matter with both parties present and mother, through her Counsel, made allegations that the father had sexually abused A prior to the contact ceasing. It is a feature of this case that since July 2012 mother has raised allegations against the father that he has sexually abused A and the allegations have materially developed as time has gone by and crystallised in the schedule of allegations contained in the bundle and dated February 2013.
13. By the time the matter came before Mrs Justice Pauffley the father relied upon investigations made by police and Children's Services and the conclusions that they had reached and Mrs Justice Pauffley directed that contact resume in accordance with my November 2011 order but it be supervised by the father's mother until the matter could be considered further.
14. The matter came back before me on 17th December 2012. I joined A as a party and he is represented today through his guardian and at a further hearing on 17th January I approved the joint instruction of Dr Berelowitz.
15. I mentioned earlier the developing position in relation to allegations of sexual abuse. They fall into four main categories. The first set of allegations raised by mother on 15th July 2012. The second group of allegations were advanced by the mother's parents and then by the mother at the end October 2012. A third set of allegations was raised on 3rd December and, after I had dealt with matters on 17th December, a fourth and last group of allegations was raised. Each and every one of those allegations have prompted investigation by police and or Social Services and certainly in relation to the first three groups of allegations, police and Social Services concluded there were no grounds to take any further action.
16. The fourth group of allegations differed from the first three because it was based on allegations made by A to someone other than mother or a member of mother's family and there was an ABE interview on 16th January 2013 two days after A made disclosures to his guardian and also having made disclosures of sexual abuse to the social worker .
17. The matter was subsequently timetabled to this hearing. I note that it was in February 2013 that the mother made application for permission to remove A to country D . Supervised contact has continued.
18. Perhaps I should add that there was perhaps a fifth group of allegations made by A to his Guardian on the 3 July when she visited him at school without notice to the mother and it is beyond contradiction to say that they constituted somewhat watered down complaints by A about his father. It is fairer to say that they bore little relation to the allegations made before.
19. I have read the filed evidence in the case and heard from a number of witnesses whose evidence I rehearse below.

Expert evidence

20. Dr Mark Berelowitz is a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead, London and the jointly appointed expert witness in this case.
21. He has been asked to report on A's allegations of sexual abuse and did so by way of replying to a number of questions posed in the letter of instruction upon which he reported on 20th March 2013. He was subsequently asked to reply to various supplementary questions and did so on 3rd July 2013.
22. In relation to his substantive report he has read all the documents that were sent to him at the time and specifically interviewed A on two occasions. Once when brought by his father and once when brought by his mother.
23. He has drawn together the threads of his assessment and replied to the questions posed to him; I summarise his written evidence briefly below.
24. He stated that a child's demeanour is an extremely poor test of whether or not he has been sexually abused stating that demeanour is relevant only in two settings namely the ABE interview and, in this particular case, when he was with his father. He was completely relaxed when he was with his father and no evidence whatever that he was afraid of him.
25. An interview setting he said was more difficult but thought it was striking that in the interview setting A seemed not at all afraid of his father, and, "was relaxed talking about him, often talked about him in a playful way, and also spoke, so far as I could tell, of his father comforting him when he was anxious." That in so far as demeanour was an indicator of sexual abuse at all what he observed in this case was not consistent with sexual abuse.
26. He wrote, "I cannot find persuasive information that would allow one to conclude that [A] has been sexually abused, by his father or by anyone else. There is no clear allegation, firmly located in time and place that is anatomically plausible, and consistently held. The allegations made in the ABE interview were by and large anatomically implausible, and comprehensively lacking in the sort of detail that is needed to conclude such a significant thing as sexual abuse."
27. After further taking into consideration the totality of the two interviews with him he stated that A had made no plausible allegation against his father and stated "… therefore I do not see how one could realistically conclude that [A] has been sexually abuse by his father or by anyone else."
28. He raised the concern that if he was right about that then that posed the question as to where the allegations had come from and the most likely source was A's mother and he was left with the impression that she had repeatedly discussed the subject with A .
29. He is open of course to the possibility that a parent might mistakenly conclude that their child has been sexually abused by someone else which of course would not be mostly abusive but it would be abusive if that parent's conclusion while mistaken was so incompetently mistaken and so falsely based that it said something about that parent's capacity or indeed, a much more serious situation when the allegations are malicious.
30. He did not think that A had been sexually abused by anyone but raised the possibility that the mother has emotionally abused him and if this is right he remains at risk of continuing emotional abuse.
31. It is of course a feature of this case and one that goes to its complexity that he identified an overwhelmingly positive attitude by A to his mother (in deed and in word) and a "lovely relationship with his father" when being observed but when not asked about the relationship when he appeared mostly very negative.
32. He has identified that A's primary emotional need was to be in a close relationship with both parents and to be free of exposure to discord.
33. He did not consider that the father posed any risk to A and raised the possibility that the mother may pose a risk, through emotional abuse if the allegations are false. In particular he said "I was concerned by her frustration with the forensic element of all this and her very clear sense as conveyed to me that the conclusion is obvious – [A] has been sexually abused by his father."
34. He has noted in relation to the parents that they are very critical of one another each of them thinking that the other is a troubled individual with a troubled past which of course in any event he highlighted, quite properly in my judgment, that exposure to discord significantly increases any child's vulnerability to child psychiatric problems.
35. It is in my judgment the core issue in the case and he was right to identify it in the way that he did.
36. In replies to additional questions I identified some of his replies to be of particular relevance. He stated that if A had been sexually abused by his father in the manner that the mother alleges he would expect him to be very afraid of his father and very uncomfortable in his presence. He went on to say "he would expect the child to be terrified of the father." He identified the possibility that A may have some additional subtle psychiatric disorder due largely to the fact that he described things in an odd way. In particular, what he described in some instances was anatomical impossibility and there was a bizarre disclosure : "bad shop wee wee flowers." It was however very difficult to clarify any problem with receptive or expressive language or of social understanding against the background of such extreme conflict.
37. Elsewhere in the main body of his report, and given what he has learnt about the antipathy of the maternal family to the father, he said "… I would have thought that if mother were to relocate with [A] to [country D], [A's] relationship with his father would come to an end very soon. Equally if the mother continues as [A's] primary carer and the father has unsupervised staying contact he highlighted the concern that if the mother continues to believe that the father has grossly sexually abused [A] when the court has determined that he has not, his contact with his father is highly likely to break down. "
38. He also gave oral evidence .His curriculum vitae is not set out in his report but it emerged in oral evidence that he has been a child psychiatrist since 1985 and has extensive experience in public and private law cases involving child sexual abuse and more often his involvement commences after the ABE interview. He has also conducted research into the psychological consequences of sexual abuse amongst children. He is well known and respected as an expert witness in cases involving child sexual abuse allegations.
39. In cross examination he was criticised by the mother's Counsel in that he did not stay clear of the ultimate question as to whether or not A had been sexually abused. He agreed that his role was not to say whether the child should be believed or not but to point out the consistencies and inconsistencies but did not think that it was part of his role to steer clear of the ultimate question particularly as by way of supplementary questions from the guardian one such question included a question as to whether or not A had been abused either emotionally or sexually . He felt that it was within his remit to say if something had not happened if, for example, it was anatomically impossible. He emphasised however that his view was just advice to the court and part of the jigsaw puzzle in fact finding and that seemed, in my judgment, to be an entirely correct approach given his instructions in this case and he has followed those instructions.
40. He did not think it appropriate to raise any questions on the propriety or otherwise of the letter of instruction and indicated that questions 1 to 5 of the supplemental questions posed by the guardian are questions commonly asked in these sort of cases particularly given his role which was often to be brought in post ABE interview to deal with specifically issues of perpetration and perpetrator and risk.
41. He explained that he based his views largely on the ABE interviews and there appeared to be some criticism of him not taking into consideration such as disclosures as there may have been in the pre-interview notes. He explained the difficulty in relation to pre-interview notes which he described as part of a screening interview by way of preparation for the ABE interview. In relation to the pre-interview notes of 9th and 15th November 2012 it was suggested to him that they revealed some evidence of sexual abuse and he indicated that he may have seen these notes when taken to various passages he described the meanings as not being clear and "elusive." Although the contents were impossible to ignore there was no understanding of what some of the words and phrases meant and it was impossible to explore whether some of the suggestions were anatomically possible, for example, a penis going up A's nose. It is clear he did not want to focus too much on these handwritten notes.
42. In relation to the ABE interview, he was clearly satisfied about the role of the intermediary and incidentally the conclusion of the intermediary's report (which I have read) makes it plain that A had the ability to communicate to give evidence during interview and at court in this case. That is a significant feature given the fact that subsequently in the ABE interview Dr Berelowitz found a number of clarifications of meanings not helpful. In fact he was not correct in stating that the interviewers were confused as to whether the "wee" or "wee wee" meant penis or urine because that matter was clarified in the pre-interview assessment and in any event it is clarified in the interview on page 22 as he himself confirms. None of this however detracted from the central plank of his evidence.
43. Whilst acknowledging that ABE interviews are notoriously difficult to conduct he was critical of the interview in relation to a number of particulars which are set out on pages 15, 16 and 17 of his report. A was invited to run around and the interviewers whispered to one another but in short form there appeared to be a lack of clarification in follow up questions in relation to some of A's utterances.
44. By way of example, at one stage in the interview A described snot coming out of "the wee wee." Shortly after that he said that the snot came out of his (father's) nose and onto his foot and the issue was not further clarified despite the officer trying to distinguish snot from the wee wee and snot from the nose. I have little doubt however that the officer did his best.
45. This underlined his main point that extreme caution was necessary in taking anything that A said too seriously including (in fairness to the mother) the fact that his mother told him to say something. In fact he also agreed that there was no evidence of coaching whatsoever in interview but the fact remains is that the meaning of "snot" remains unclear.
46. One possible explanation for A's difficulties with verbal expression is that he has some type of subtle psychiatric disorder as he was not easy to understand and used words in an idiosyncratic way. There was a possibility that he could have been abused but was not able to describe it in a clear and anatomical way or he was bamboozled or he has said things that has persuaded his mother to think that he has been abused.
47. The core issue in the case he identified given his conclusion, was that nothing will persuade the mother that A has not been sexually abused and there was a real risk that A would believe that he was if he is cared for by the mother.
48. The principal way in which sexual abuse of children can be identified is by a child giving a clear anatomically plausible independent account of having been sexually abused. It is plain that he thought that the child's account was central to this process.
49. He was criticised for not challenging father on his account to Social Services of showering and bathing with A and cleaning his genital area as he did not see that there was a connection between this and the extreme allegations of anal rape, penis biting and ejaculating on the face and to do so he did not consider it to be helpful.
50. He did however ask father about pornography as mother had raised it and he thought it was worth asking. He emphasised, and it is perhaps a measure of his balance, that he formed no view on the allegations that each party were making against the other. He was criticised for not exploring the information given to the guardian that A had been sharing a bedroom with his father and, on A's account, "sharing a bed." He accepted he did not explore every issue with each parent.
51. As I have already rehearsed, he saw A on two occasions briefly on his own. His methodology is to take a note on his laptop from which he then dictates a detailed record and then deletes the notes. He does this as soon as possible afterwards when he gets a chance and confirmed that it was not possible to type each answer and question.
52. He accepted that A had spoken to a myriad of professional people (including the ABE interview) before he saw him but he did interview A because of the letter of instruction. Although he had a video facility using such a facility was very uncommon unless he is asked effectively to carry out an ABE type of interview and it is clear that he saw his approach in this case as part of his usual methodology.
53. He said that it was important to assess A's attitude to his father given what he saw of the good relationship between them and could not do so without dealing with the allegation.
54. In his report he gives a limited summary of what A said to him and highlighted the difficulties given A's age saying that five year olds do not interview easily.
55. Part of the process was to see him with his father with whom he was comfortable and then go on and see what A says spontaneously without his father. When that happened A said contradictory things.
56. He was criticised for asking if anyone had told A what to say as it was a leading question and he indicated that leading questions were justified in certain situations describing this as a question that "had to be asked." It was a reasonable question at some stage and he followed his clinical nose particularly as A's conduct with his father was at odds with extreme allegations of anal rape or penis biting.
57. It is clear that he felt vindicated by what the mother herself later said in her statement namely "to tell the rude things that you told me that daddy did that made you scared" and the matters that A disclosed had the "whiff of a list." Dr Berelowitz said that he had been in the business long enough to be suspicious of a list.
58. He rejected any suggestion that he was attempting to supplement the ABE interview or in some sense going too far and saying that he was trying to understand how this little boy's mind worked to see if there was an allegation that hadn't emerged from the ABE interview. He was trying to illustrate how difficult it was to get any type of coherent story from A .
59. He agreed that from a forensic point of view A's account was diminished and it was a contradiction that although he had unpleasant thoughts about his father, he was clearly comfortable with him.
60. He was criticised again for asking if "daddy was mean to mummy" it being a leading question but rejected any inference of impropriety describing it as a core question in this case.
61. It was important for him to see if A had any capacity to reflect on the fact that he is seen by him to have a lovely time with his father in circumstances where anal rape would have induced a state of fear as indeed would the other allegations and inserting an index finger into a child's anus would have been an uncomfortable and memorable experience and I am bound to say I agree with him.
62. The most likely source of this information was the mother because it has been in her mind for a long time and she has disclosed it to A. It does not follow that she has emotionally abused him by encouraging him to make the allegations but she is preoccupied with the fact that he apparently has. Having seen and assessed the mother in court, I have little doubt that she has encouraged them in subliminal way.
63. He was clearly disturbed that the mother was associating what A has said with her own experiences and it was a complex situation and a preoccupation by the mother to read A's utterances as abuse.
64. It is clear that the best outcome for A was the mother to let go of her false belief to help the child let go of his belief but reiterated that this was not always possible.
65. He agreed in cross examination by father's Counsel that there were a number of building blocks in assessing the accuracy of children's accounts. Firstly a clear and anatomically consistent and plausible account and secondly, that this should be located in time and place. After these building blocks had been established then one could go and look at the child's demeanour and check that the child in fact is describing his own experience and then move on to a care plan and treatment as appropriate.
66. If the building blocks were not present something else "had gone on."
67. He found inconsistencies in all the allegations of anal rape, digital penetration, oral sex and ejaculation in the mouth and there was an extreme contrast between the allegations and what A has said not only to him but to others and he had not heard a consistent anatomically accurate account.
68. There was an absence of "time and place." A penis bite would have been painful and remembered. If a penis had been put into his mouth he would be likely to have retched and struggled to breathe. Digital or penile penetration of the anus without explanation would be painful and frightening and he would expect in each and every case for there to be a contextual memory.
69. As to the suggestion that in a young child the passage of time may affect this ability to give a clear contextual account but he has said he had seen many children of A's age who are able to give a clear and consistent account which he did not get in this case.
70. He outlined in the context of this case the risk of emotional abuse which he defined as "the psychological treatment of a child that is strongly contrary to the child's interests and needs." It was a matter of some concern to him that he had recorded of the mother "she said her child shares things that have happened before - everyone in the court process wants to have their minds clarified. He needs to be able to heal. How can we heal [A]. He has been abused. How can we both be healed - it does affect the mother - your heart breaks when you know your child has experienced these things. These are things that [A] tells me it doesn't matter if people disprove it till the cows come home." Apparently he was clearly concerned by mother's frustration with the forensic element and the fact that in her statement she did not advocate any direct contact between the respondent father and A but put forward the view that if the respondent is able to genuinely recognise the serious nature of his behaviour and cooperates with the recommendations of professionals that she would try and involve him in A's life. There was clear risk of emotional abuse if in fact the father had not sexually abused A because A will believe that he has been abused and it could lead to psychological difficulties. He will not have a relationship with his father and learn to hate fifty per cent of the cells in his own body.
71. It was real worry for him that mother said that she knew it had happened because it chimed with what had happened to her and her perception of her own experiences were impacting on her ability to appraise the child's experiences independently. The example of that was A's description of "scratchy" and her own recollection of being scratched by the father's pubic hair.
72. Given that he had already said that the court must be wary of anything that A said he was clearly concerned by A's disclosure to the guardian on 3rd July. A told the guardian when asked if daddy did anything that was naughty said "pinches and punches and doesn't bring me food when I was three and four and one and two" and that sounded to Dr Berelowitz as suspiciously like a list. In passing I note that it is not much like the earlier disclosures. In fact, it could not be more different.
73. A said he wanted to go to country D because he didn't like the weather and it was unusual for a five year old to go on about the weather.
74. Of course his disclosures to the guardian were much more limited in July 2013 and he clearly noted the de-escalation of the allegations in circumstances where the mother's last visit to A at school was not notified to the mother in advance. If the allegations were false he would expect the allegations to continue into the future. I agree with him.
75. In relation to regime change by living with father, if mother doesn't help with explanations there are risks that A will think that his mother has been wronged but happily, in some cases, the child forgets the allegations and if the allegations are found to be false contact may need to be modest and supervised as there was a fear that mother will continue to seek proof and validation and make further allegations.
76. He said that if the mother relocates to country D and does not accept the court's decision and leaves A behind this would be experienced by A as an extremely strong rejection and may be harmful to him.
77. There is little doubt that he felt that the extremity of the discord between the parents had had a profound effect and the tangible evidence was that is when A is observed to be having a good time with his father but has not said anywhere that he enjoyed it.
78. I accept his evidence. Of course there were criticisms of his questions of A and his methodology. He is however a vastly experienced expert witness and I found his observations particularly in relation to the ABE interview (which I have seen) largely to accord with my own independent assessment of the things that A said in that ABE interview. I agree with him, after considering all the evidence in the case, that those disclosures cannot be relied upon as evidence of sexual abuse by his father. I also agree with him as to the wider consequences, particularly psychological and psychiatric consequences for A if the mother continues to promote the allegations in the absence of any finding by the court.
79. DC F is the police officer who conducted the ABE interview of A in January 2013 and he was summonsed to give evidence limited to his informal interviews with A in July, October, November 2012 and January 2013, his conduct of the ABE interview with A , his discussion with father in November 2012 and his interview with the father under caution in October 2012, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have seen A's ABE interview and read the transcript.
80. For the avoidance of doubt I accept Dr Berelowitz's view that "this interview does not allow us to conclude what, if anything, happened to A." I have grave concerns about the probative value of this interview even allowing for A's age there is a lack of contextual detail and frankly, some of the responses are just incomprehensible and there is certainly no clear anatomically plausible account of having been sexually abused even taking into consideration the age, stage, linguistic development and perspective of the relevant child.
81. When DC F came to give live evidence he explained that he was first involved in July 2012 and a handwritten note of the assessment interview that he conducted on 17th July was disclosed for the first time. The notes of that interview make it plain that there were no disclosures that would give rise to police involvement and it was decided not to tell the father what had transpired.
82. I note in passing that what seems to have precipitated his involvement as a child abuse protection officer was that police had been involved in an argument over handover, the officer had been made aware of an allegation and referred the matter to DC F's unit. The interview took place at the mother's house and he thought that the mother was present when he and a social worker spoke to A and certainly what was recorded in the Social Services' case note of 17th July corresponded with his own recollection that there was in fact no material disclosure.
83. His next involvement was on 18th October following a referral from the NSPCC. I record in passing that there appear to have been difficulties over contact handover on 10th September and 28th September and once again there is a handwritten note of the assessment interview with A. This took place at a police station in their facility there. The social worker was present and made the note and mother was in a separate room. The interview notes are punctuated with a lot of "don't knows" but I am persuaded that more was said by A than was said by him in July but I was struck by an emerging theme in this case that has endured throughout all the interviews including the ABE interview and discussions with the guardian, that there is an apparent discontinuity of answers to questions. The officer was clearly perplexed by some of the answers that he received and it was noted in the subsequent corresponding Social Services record that A was perceived to "wander off the topic."
84. I record also a piece of evidence of great significance namely that the officer recorded throughout his involvement with A (and he would have seen A on at least five occasions) that he presented as a very happy little boy. Incidentally, he was more than aware of the fact that the mother had expressed concern about A not making disclosures while at the police station and there was criticism of him and the other professionals in that the matter had not been dealt with properly although his position was that it was handled appropriately.
85. Although the decision was made not to involve A with an ABE interview at that stage it was decided that the father would be interviewed by way of a voluntary interview under caution and that is the transcript that appears amongst the papers and this took place on 22nd October 2012. I have read that interview with care and father's case was that denied any wrong doing but there were occasions when he would assist with cleaning A's genitals and he made complaint that his bottom was not often clean when he came to him from his mother's care.
86. A referral was made by mother through the GP and the child protection social worker at the hospital some time before 9th November, and it could have been on 9th November, there was a physical examination of A which was non-penetrative or invasive that revealed no concern and it seemed that the mother was informed of this but told police that A had made further allegations of sexual abuse and as a consequence on 9th November the officer took the decision to conduct an assessment interview with A without the presence of a social worker and there is a handwritten record of that interview. It contained no credible disclosures of a sexual nature with further examples of discontinuity of answers and questions. The officer said that A was a difficult child to get to sit down and give a proper account and he thought that that was more attributable to his age than nothing else. I recall that those disclosures involve A saying that his father : "puts him wee up my nose and there hundred and ten snot - that's from his wee. His wee made it" and another allegation of the father apparently putting his penis in A's ear an allegation which perhaps unsurprisingly Dr Berelowitz has characterised as implausible.
87. It seems that on 15th November the officer telephoned the mother who asked to go and see her to advise her there would be no further police action and it was then that he was involved in an impromptu discussion with A and his mother and the grandparents on Skype. There is a dispute in relation to whether A was being questioned by the mother or the grandmother but whoever was asking the questions they were certainly posed in a very unusual situation in a thoroughly unsatisfactory manner and the officer noted his disapproval of conversations in effect taking place in front of A.
88. Incidentally, the officer was criticised for posing direct and or leading questions throughout the earlier process and he preferred to describe his questions as being direct questions "with the best of motives" and it seems that his approach is to progress to direct or leading questions if disclosure is not forthcoming as although it may go to the weight to be attached to such disclosures, he has to have regard to the welfare of the child involved.
89. I have omitted perhaps to mention one or two aspects of father's explanation in his ABE interview of 22nd October that he has had to clean A's bottom and this is because he says that the mother is very hung up on sexuality and he implies some religious motive for her being reluctant to clean her son's genital areas. The police officer did not follow this line of enquiry up with the school in any way.
90. Returning to the Skype "interview" on 15th November, his impression was that the grandmother was conducting the questions in the main. He accepted that leading and direct questions had been put in the same way as he had done but of course, in my judgment, it is very different when these questions are put by a family member be it the mother or the grandmother.
91. I am bound to say that I agree with the officer's report thereafter to Social Care that it was totally inappropriate and the officer was right to feel uncomfortable and concerned. I have little doubt that it did indeed catch him off his guard to be involved in this process and he had a feeling, and this is crucial, that it was stage managed. He was uneasy about A being taken to the computer screen and gained the impression that the grandmother or mother was trying to infer that snot was semen and trying to get A to articulate this although he would ask a direct question, he would not have any particular answer as a goal. When he disclosed his investigation report excerpt he noted "that [the maternal grandmother] began an impromptu leading interview with [A] over Skype asking him to tell me about what he tells them. I began taking notes and [A's] stated after direct leading questioning that daddy puts wee wee in bum and I and makes him eat it. They asked him about his snot (they think snot means semen) and he said it comes from his nose. I told them that I disagree with all these conversations about the case in front of [A] but she (whom I later understood to be the mother) didn't agree. [The mother] could not understand that there is insufficient evidence to pursue the matter but her father spoke to me and said he understood."
92. He agreed with the suggestion that mother was upset about the decision not to prosecute.
93. Disclosures to A's guardian on 14th January resulted in an ABE interview of A on 16th January following advice and assistance from an intermediary.
94. The officer remained unclear as to whether any of the disclosures were new or not and recorded that A had only just resumed contact before this disclosure. I think I am correct in saying that there had been one new disclosure and the police's view was that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute but they would await Dr Berelowitz's report which he has since seen and there is no police plan for a further criminal investigation.
95. It was clear that he was aware of Dr Berelowitz's criticism of the conduct of the interview but, in my judgment, he did the best he could given A's tendency to go off with a tangent and make fantastical descriptions. The officer was candid enough to say that often he could not make sense and did not understand what A was saying and there were attempts by him to try and get to the bottom of some of A's utterances but he could not form a reliable view.
96. I am reminded that Dr Berelowitz was critical that the officer in the interview did not ascertain until much later on that 'wee wee' meant penis. I know that this was in fact established in 9th November interview that it did in fact mean penis but matters are complicated when A described "daddy's wee wee" as "all mixed up with brown and black." Of course there were some disclosures which at first blush are worrying. But I am bound to say that they fail any meaningful sense of reliable disclosure and I was struck throughout all the interviews that there was a lack of clarity, consistency, plausibility which was located in both time and place (i.e. context) features which have so troubled Dr Berelowitz.
97. There may well have been criticisms of this officer's style of questioning but I am bound to say that looking at matters in the round and having seen A's presentation for myself on the DVD interview, he did the best he could.
98. G is A's grandmother and lives in country D The mother is one of eleven of her children. G presents as a genuinely concerned mother and grandmother and gave her evidence calmly and with dignity. She filed a statement dated 18th June which makes it clear that she has had a lot of contact with her daughter by way of visits to this country, telephone and Skype over the last three years.
99. Her written evidence indicates that she has been aware of the mother's concerns regarding "the father touching A's genitals since 2010" and she has suggested professional involvement. She reports that her daughter was cautious of making any hasty accusations and hoped that her concerns were unfounded.
100. She has witnessed A's reluctance to go to contact with father on a number of occasions and handovers have been difficult. All of this of course does not sit comfortably with the evident good time that A has with his father as reported by Dr Berelowitz and contact supervisors but what in my judgment it is undoubtedly true is that the toxic relationship between the parties has affected A who as seen by Dr Berelowitz is more than aware of it.
101. It seems that she has had regular contact with the mother's solicitors, , to the extent of raising the mother's concerns regarding alleged inappropriate touching as long ago as 2nd May 2012 and being privy to court documents including the DVD of the ABE interview, Dr Berelowitz's report, and her daughter's statement. She has been dealing with the solicitors as she said that her daughter gets very stressed and was emotionally distraught at the dictatorial way in which her life was being run. This reached the extent that her daughter was unable to open her emails from the solicitors and she described herself as acting as a sort of "scribe."
102. It transpired in cross examination that she was privy to the core documents sent to her by solicitors by email before she wrote her statement. In particular she has seen the notes of the assessment interviews of 9th and 15th November 2012.
103. She was candid in that she said that she had discussed what was happening on countless occasions with her daughter and that included the allegations of sexual abuse and she experienced a feeling of relief when the police listened to A in December 2013. She denied however any suggestion that she has discussed A's allegations with him but said "I just listen. I don't discuss with the child." She only told A to tell the truth and he has said all those things that she reported in her statement.
104. She did accept however that on one occasion that A had been present during a Skype or telephone call to her daughter when matters were discussed.
105. She was resistant to the notion that she had some dislike of the father and claims that A when talking to Dr Berelowitz picked up on the negatives. I have little doubt that he did and, I have little doubt that A knows the poor opinion that his grandmother and mother hold of his father. It is a core issue in this case.
106. She is clearly supportive of her daughter's application to remove A from the jurisdiction and in her statement indicates that she has been surprised by the number of additional applications that father has made to the court following the conclusion of the financial and Children Act proceedings and she has witnessed the emotional toll this has taken on her daughter. Her husband and her are using their retirement fund to assist the daughter with her legal fees while she waits for her house to be sold.
107. A benefit she describes in relation to the proposed application to live in Australia would be "the addition of a number of adults who would assist with contact between [the father] and [A] " I must confess some surprise when she dealt with the application for leave in her oral evidence saying that it would be best for the mother and A to go to country D with contact to the father so that A could enjoy the best of each of them. This flies in the face of her assertion that she has no reason to disbelieve A's allegations and that she does not doubt the truth of them. Therefore, in my judgment, if contact is to occur it would be at best supervised and a considerable distance away leaving a substantial risk that the relationship between father and A would wither and die away.
108. Her family's involvement in relation to the matter perhaps is best illustrated by the fact that it was they that initiated the NSPCC referral on or about 17th October which, as we know, set in motion another chain of enquiry. She explained that they had desperately unhappy calls from A and his mother said that she was not being taken seriously. She was challenged on the fact that she had told the NSPCC that A had been making allegations since he was three years old i.e. 18 months or so before the October referral to the NSPCC and we know of course that when A was seen by the social worker and DC F from the Child Abuse Investigation Unit for a pre-assessment interview, A did not make disclosures of sexual abuse.
109. She recalled a report by her husband on 29th October to Social Services that A had told his grandfather about him being subjected to oral sex on many occasions. It is of course right that that is not included in the list of allegations that was given to the NSPCC on 17th October and her explanation was that they were not trying to give a full list to the NSPCC to cover every single thing that A had said.
110. Perhaps the bulk of the criticism attributable to her and raised in correspondence arose from the Skype interview of 15th November and which I have already dealt with in my rehearsal of DC F's evidence. G maintained that she was not the person asking the questions and therefore DC F's notes are incorrect in that respect.
111. She explained, as she did in paragraph 14 of her statement, that before DC F rang to say that he was coming round, A had already made disclosures to his grandparents over Skype. Apparently he told G that she wanted to tell her something and G agreed that mother was probably in the room. Her statement reveals that A told her that his daddy put his "wee wee" on his face and head : specifically on his ear, forehead and mouth. A said that there was "lots of snot" from father's "wee wee" and he felt "sick, scared and angry." A said "you have to come grandma."
112. Her evidence was that she acknowledged these disclosures and told A that he needed to tell someone because he needed to be safe. He needed to speak up. At this particular time A was showing fear in going to his father's as distinct from the present position when he goes to the contact centre.
113. When DC F arrived the grandparents were still connected on Skype although there was no picture on the screen and she could hear DC F tell the mother that the case was not going to proceed. A's disclosure was the first time that A had said anything directly to her. She heard her daughter's great distress at being told that the investigation was not proceeding and took the view that she was traumatized and heard her saying : "you can't do this. You have to help my little boy" and she called out to the grandparents who were connected on Skype. It must have been distressing for all including A who was present and then put in the spotlight by the subsequent questioning on Skype, whoever posed the questions. There was, as a direct consequence, a considerable risk that he would have known what was expected of him.
114. She was concerned that the professionals did not have the same level of information as the family and wanted A to be heard by DC F as did his mother.
115. She could have asked the first question on DC F's note but she did not ask the subsequent questions. Apparently A had been saying "I tell people but they are not listening." She was challenged that this was not in fact what a four year old would say but she described him as being 'very smart.'
116. She was prepared to encourage A to speak and the mother had said that there was nothing to lose as no one was listening and she saw it as an opportunity as the policeman was there.
117. She denied any suggestion that the questions (in any event not put by her) were intended to produce certain answers and she accepted that there were perhaps questions that she wouldn't have asked.
118. In terms of the nature of the evidence, it is plain that she thought that there would be a greater travesty of justice if this little boy was continuing to be abused although of course she understood that the police did not have enough evidence.
119. She denied any suggestion that the disclosure was stage managed.
120. She was clearly very distressed when she told the court that, little by little A was telling them things and she wanted someone to help, someone to listen and it was negligent not to pass this information on. Stage managing however was not in her nature.
121. She confirmed to the guardian's Counsel although one of her daughters was not sexually abused by her husband, another daughter in her family had been sexually abused by somebody in the wider family.
122. She was taken to the disclosures in the guardian's report. I am mindful of course that on her own evidence she had told A he could speak to the guardian and that she was a nice lady and could be trusted.
123. It is clear some of the disclosures are punctuated by A's remark "mummy told me to say it" and her explanation for that is that he has been encouraged to tell someone about the abuse that he could trust and it was certainly not a question of him being told what to say.
124. She confirmed that mother had an initial concern at A's birth that father's interest in pornography could harm him.
125. She made it plain before she left the witness box that she hoped that A would be able to travel to country D with his mother and of course I accept that it is her earnest wish having read evidence of the mother's sense of isolation and unhappiness.
126. In giving her evidence she presented as a kindly and committed mother and grandmother and clearly believed that what A has said has amounted to sexual abuse of him by his father and there never seems to have been any occasion where she has considered another possibility or indeed the impact of Dr Berelowitz's investigations whose report she has read. There appeared to be little understanding of effect of the chronic relationship between the parents and its probable relationship with the allegations. There is a fear that she will become entrenched in this view and if the allegations are not true, A will be supported by her and other family members in an erroneous belief.
127. It is also clear to the court that she holds a poor opinion of the father, which may be of course be justified, and the solution for her would be for her daughter to move to country D where she could be assisted and supported by what I am persuaded is a close and loving family. She has explained how extremely difficult it has been for her daughter to remain in England alone and isolated and how both her daughter and A would thrive in country D with all the opportunities that living there would bring.
128. C is A's mother and the author of two statements in these proceedings, and an affidavit and a police statement, all of which I have read.
129. Her latest statement is dated 13th June 2013. It is a lengthy document that comprises a number of exhibits which deal comprehensively with the nature of her relationship with the respondent, the allegations more particularly contained in the schedule of allegations and her application for leave to remove A to country D against a background of difficult contact arrangements and what she perceives to be the father's continuing controlling and abusive behaviour of her.
130. In terms of the relationship with the father, she has made complaint in her statement of 22nd November 2012 and subsequently in her later statement, of the historical unpleasantness that she perceives that she has endured at the hands of the father during their relationship as a consequence of what she describes as him never being interested in what she perceives as normal heterosexual intercourse and his fixation with anal sex and preoccupation with oral sex which, understandably perhaps in my judgment, would go to feed her concerns arising from A's disclosures.
131. Her statement describes her feeling isolated in this country and expressing I have no doubt a completely genuine desire to return to her home country of D where she can be supported by family, friends and her church with the prospect of a better lifestyle for both A and herself.
132. I deal with her proposals for contact a little later.
133. It is a however her allegation that the father has sexually abused A which lie at the core of her applications to reduce contact to what effectively will be no more than supervised contact and leave the jurisdiction with A.
134. Her police statement is dated 30th January 2013 which will have been after the ABE interview and she rehearses the disclosures that she says that A has made to her and her account that when A was making a disclosure of a sexual nature he would tell her that it scared him, made him angry and sad. She denies any suggestion that she has put any ideas into A's head and says that she has no other agenda against the father and would have no motive for doing so as she is an national of country D living on her own with A and with no family around her. She says in her police statement that she is reliant on the father's finance to support A so it would serve her no purpose to invent accusations. However her acute dislike of the father is marked, as is the protracted nature of the litigation.
135. When she came to give her oral evidence she was understandably from time to time, distressed. I say understandably because there is little doubt that she honestly believes that the allegations that A has made are true and resistant to any notion that although A may have indeed made such disclosures that the likelihood of A having been abused by his father is improbable and rooted in A's perception of her view of the father and the acrimonious divorce, matrimonial and contact proceedings.
136. It is right that as long ago as 2nd June 2008 she had a documented discussion with a nurse at a hospital about father's interest in pornography and his controlling behaviour and how she had said that she did not want to bring her child up in that environment. I have been reminded in the course of evidence that A was born prematurely at about 26 weeks and was hospitalised after birth for about four and a half months.
137. She resists any suggestion, as alleged by the father, that she has some sort of hang up about normal human nudity and confirmed that her description of pornography was not limited to pictures of topless indigenous tribes people or topless bathing per se although the father leering at semi-naked women did make her feel insecure and devalued.
138. She also resisted the imputation made in father's statement that she had indulged in binge eating and purging herself and exercising excessively together with smoking heavily and that as a consequence she had somehow been neglectful of A's health before his birth. In fact she did not accept that she had been involved in any of those activities to a significant degree and her bulimia is and was well controlled.
139. She told the court that the marriage was in trouble from the start and significantly for her perhaps on her marriage night she was asked to do certain things of a sexual nature by the father that showed her that she was 'a nothing.'
140. By the time A was 15 months old she did go to country D for Christmas 2009 by which time certainly in her view the marriage was over.
141. In her evidence in chief she denied any suggestion that she had coached A i.e. to make something up and then tell A to say it as if it was true. She has always said to A tell the truth about 'the things daddy is doing' and say 'what you told me about what daddy is doing.'
142. There was one occasion before A saw Dr Berelowitz for the last time that she did agree that she did remind A of what he had said to her in the past.
143. Her position is that she wanted someone to hear what A was saying and was reluctant to pursue the allegations for a long time as she thought there may be other explanations but too much evidence she says has emerged and she cannot sit back and cannot "unhear" what she has heard. She showed some understanding that the court may not be able to find the allegations proved but it was important the court knew what A had said. She said that her heart was breaking for a very long time in relation to the disclosures.
144. She wants to raise A in country D and away from the conflict in which she was engaged and "for our lives to heal." There was little thought to the consequences of A's relationship with his father.
145. She has a well considered plan to go to a small town not far from a city, H. near to her parents and has identified a suitable school.
146. In her oral evidence she was resistant to the notion of direct contact if there was continued denial from the father but held out the prospect that if he recognised it then she would try and involve A in his life.
147. I am bound to say that she had some difficulty in understanding the implications if the court found the allegations not to be proved but expressed a willingness to comply with any orders.
148. On a minor matter perhaps : she denied any suggestion that she had not cleaned A's bottom properly because of not feeling comfortable with doing so. I fully accept that as she has been a nurse for many years and frequently would be involved in cleaning the bottoms of children and adults that this criticism of her is ill-founded.
149. She faced lengthy cross examination by father's Counsel as indeed she was bound to maintaining her stance that A has been abused and she is certain of it with no room for any doubt and she has tried, on her case, to take the appropriate steps to protect A. There was a slight moderation in her stance on contact but she would agree supervised contact at this stage as her understanding has grown and the fact that father was getting supervised contact now.
150. She was taken to the schedule of allegations and criticised that in relation to allegation one and the suggestion that the respondent would shower with A that this did not amount to inappropriate touching and or sexual abuse. Certainly the schedule indicates that this occurred "from 2009" although in her original schedule set out in a much earlier statement she stated that it was "in 2009." She said that she had not thought of any difference and the document had been drafted by lawyers and I accept what she says.
151. It is interesting to note that the issue of showering first emerges in a statement of hers of 6th November 2010 when she was opposing staying contact. She accepted that at that point she had not raised the issue of sexual abuse.
152. There is something of an embellishment to that allegation as in her statement she said that she often noticed the respondent father grabbing A's fingers and licking them slowly from base to top which made her feel extremely uncomfortable and which she thought was "very sexual" in manner but it is a matter of record of course that the allegation of sexual abuse was never raised before the court.
153. It seemed that when the former CAFCASS officer, I was preparing her report on 17th November 2010 in relation to staying contact that she made various apposite comments about this case and I quote : "I am concerned that the needs of the child are hidden by the parents' overriding need "defeat" the other party and fabricate a correlation between the dynamics of their own relationship into that of the other party and the child. The lack of insight into the impact on the child of the expression negativity about the other parent is striking in this case." That is as true now as it was in 2010, in my judgment.
154. It emerged that when J, another CAFCASS officer, was involved on 21st November 2011 the issue of risk of sexual abuse still had not formally been raised and mother said that she was more concerned over emotional abuse and the difficulties in relation to contact.
155. It is also a striking feature that staying contact was extended by consent by an order that I made on 21st November 2011 and not one word was presented to me in relation to any abuse allegations. There is little doubt that given the mother's chronology as to when these allegations started to emerge that there were missed opportunities to be heard.
156. The mother's assertion is that none of these allegations are the subject of invention by her and having seen her or heard her I am fully persuaded that she is right but during the course of hearing their evidence I was increasingly anxious that they were the product of the negativity so astutely identified by Cafcass Officer I in 2010. In short form, what is alleged in schedule one does not, in my judgment, amount to sexual abuse or inappropriate touching and she has encouraged, over time, more and more disclosures, believing all the time that they were true.
157. Allegations 2 and 3 on the schedule comprise A disclosing in the autumn of 2011 when he refused to go to contact with the respondent, that his father touches his wee wee and also in February 2012 that the father made him sad because he touches and rubs his wee wee.
158. I note that this issue was first raised to police on 16th July 2012 when the police log noted that the mother had no immediate concerns with the child spending time with the father and of course this led to the interview on 17th July 2012 when no disclosure at all of a sexual nature was made by A until the matter developed into the complaint to the NSPCC in October which I will come to in due course.
159. She was challenged that Dr Berelowitz had reported that A had a negative view of his father and that his mummy didn't like him and neither did her mother and her position was that she hadn't told him to express this view. She may not have done but I am in no doubt that he had her subtle approval to do so.
160. It seems that notwithstanding the allegations numbered 2, 3 and 4, the only concern that A expressed in his pre-assessment interview in July 2012 was him not being brought back to his mummy after contact and the mother agreed that she has told A that his father is late and, there is little doubt in my mind that A would have picked up on her negative attitude. She was able to agree that he was being pulled in two separate ways but did not accept that as a consequence A was saying what she wanted her to hear.
161. It was suggested to her that perhaps the nub of the problem was A's view of his father as articulated to Dr Berelowitz who highlights the likely cause as the extreme of discord between the parents. There was no evidence from her as to any insight into this proposition at least as a possibility.
162. The mother was not able to accept Dr Berelowitz's view that what he witnessed of A's lovely relationship with his father and that being inconsistent with the truth of the extreme nature of the allegations that she makes. I remind myself that Dr Berelowitz said that there would be no change in A's demeanour which would have been a fear by a gap of five months but the mother did not agree because at the time she said that A was terrified and distressed when Mrs Justice Paulfrey ordered continuation of contact but is able to express love of his father in a protected environment. I prefer Dr Berelowitz's evidence.
163. I am afraid I must also throw into the balance the uniformly glowing account of contact between 13th January and 13th July 2013 which seems to be inconsistent with her account of A's fear and I increasingly came to the view that his resistance to contact may well be rooted in negative feelings of his father and the discord between the parties.
164. It was also clear that although the mother was complying with orders and trying to help A deal with these in the best way, she did not agree with them. He would in my judgment have picked up on all that subliminal message.
165. In relation to allegations 2 and 3, she said that she could see no need for father to touch or rub the penis of a child of A's age as he "self toilets" and describes the penis as a "closed unit." She had clearly shut her mind to any innocent explanation and the explanation given by father in his interview of applying Sudocrem to A's bottom to deal with soreness and thought any application of cream to a penis was not acceptable as she never saw the penis in a red or sore state. Whatever her view there is no evidence that she confided her fears in two CAFCASS officers or indeed for myself or Judge Hickman at the various hearings. Furthermore she had allowed holidays to father in 2012.
166. It is right that she raised the issue of sexual touching in her statement of November 2010 because A had developed, on her account, an obsession with his penis and had been inserting his finger in the penis but she confined her concerns to the father cleaning him resulting in what she described as "this unusual behaviour." It was no more than that.
167. The first evidence of concerns of any type of sexual abuse were raised to police in a call on 15th July with a reference to father touching A's penis but it was recorded that she had no immediate concerns with the child spending the time with father. This of course as we know led to the pre-assessment interview on 17th July when no disclosure was made.
168. On the mother's case her real concerns arose as long ago as March 2011 telling Dr Berelowitz that she never thought that she doubted it but she was anxious to tell the court that she didn't want to jump to conclusions and didn't want to believe it over the passage of time. It was her instinct that it was true but she was fighting the concept.
169. It is right to say that she was cross examined vigorously over the detail of various allegations and she found it very difficult to answer questions owing to her distress and sometimes confusion reiterating on many occasions that she just knew what her child had told her. The crucial allegations 1, 2 and 3 were not raised before the July hearing before District Judge Hickman and she recorded her frustration and distress at the failure of the s 91(14) application.
170. She denied any notion the allegations of sexual abuse were linked to her frustrations over contact issues but there is some evidence to suggest that the issue of potential sexual abuse was raised when there had been an issue over contact. She resisted any view that allegations 1, 2 and 3 had been reinterpreted by her as sexual abuse by autumn of 2012. She had been gauging A's reactions and she knew it was true based on what A had said to her. She was convinced, she said.
171. Allegation 4 involved a disclosure by A that his father had put his fingers up his bottom she dealt with by rejecting the father's explanation that this would have been no more than applying Sudocrem to a sore bottom which he had learnt in a parenting class. She was challenged that she was prepared to accept allegations of sexual abuse made by A but not other non sexual allegations. One such was that A said that he had been punched by his father recorded by her in her diary on 10th September 2012 which she clearly thought unlikely. Incidentally in the diary there was no entry in relation to "the fingers up bottom" allegation but of course I accept her assertion that she did not record everything in that diary.
172. She was challenged again that she had nevertheless allowed staying contact and holidays abroad on two occasions in 2012 but reported that when A came back he started to get terrified and withdrawn particularly after the August holiday.
173. Allegations 5 and 6 were made on 28th September in the morning and in the afternoon although A was not returned apparently until after 7 o'clock in the evening as she had telephoned police to complain of late return. Once again there was a theme that an allegation came after a difficulty in relation to contact. These allegations are put in different form in her January 2013 police statement. Incidentally she also confirmed that it had been her wish to have the father prosecuted so that he could get help and to keep A safe but her allegation was true and not invented although she accepted that she could have got the day or date wrong.
174. When she reports the late return on 28th September 2012 the police noted that she was increasingly worried about sexual behaviour but there is a mismatch in terms of detail in relation to what she says subsequently in her police statement of 30th January 2013, her statement in these proceedings, and the schedule. She maintained the substance of what she was saying was true and she had reported what A had said on or about 28th September. The allegations of course involving father putting his "wee wee" on A's back and bottom, putting his wee wee near A's nose, the wee wee made snot which was a clear reference to ejaculation.
175. What in my judgment is surprising is that she spoke to social workers on 30th September and her complaint seems to have been limited to A's seeming to be more withdrawn. There is no documentary evidence whatsoever that this was relayed to Social Services.
176. Allegation 7 involved an allegation that on 29th October the father had bitten A's "wee wee," held it and kissed it. This allegation was not set out in mother's subsequent affidavit of 22nd November in relation to her ex parte application to the High Court although in fairness to her the statement makes it plain that it was made in haste but it is striking that allegations were limited to "father touching his penis and bottom inappropriately." This is more surprising as the maternal grandfather made an allegation by telephone on 29th October regarding oral sex and there is no record of the mother making that allegation at the end of October or early days of November to Social Care.
177. It is also right to record that a social worker who visited on 5th November and saw A for an hour and a half and A never spoke about his father or raised any concern. The mother has made complaint that there have been lots of errors by professionals not recording the relevant matters. I do not accept that for one moment.

Allegation 8 involved "daddy's sticky went in my eye" and then an allegation that the father had put his penis on A's bottom and there is an allegation of ejaculation.

178. The mother alleges that the father has tried to have anal sex with her in the past. She has had anal sex with a previous boyfriend and didn't like it. It is nothing to do with her religion.
179. She was criticised that this allegation surfaced first on 6th February 2013 when she was ordered to prepare her schedule; it had not been disclosed to police, had not been contained in an earlier statement or affidavit or told to social workers. Her response was that she had tried to tell police about it on 9th November at A's medical examination but DC F had not had the opportunity to speak to her.
180. There is of course A's disclosure on 9th November that his father put his penis up A's nose and in his ear and this of course is slightly different as well as being anatomically impossible but mother's response is that that is what A has said from a child's perspective and it may well be the way that he was trying to communicate what had happened and of course I must be alive to that possibility although I also have to balance that against Dr Berelowitz's view is that a child of A's age is capable of giving a clear account.
181. Nevertheless it is clear that the mother believes A's account of the father's penis going in his ear and up his nose because A has said it. Perversely perhaps she was less inclined to believe A's account that the father squeezed a drink on his hair and broke his baby pram which she acknowledged could be "nonsense" talk but in her mind the other disclosures raised alarm bells particularly when she was able to see his fear.
182. Allegation 10 involved a disclosure by A on 9th January which involved him getting an erection and rocking backwards and forwards against his mother and him explaining that his father showed him how to make it go small presumably by masturbating. That was certainly her impression. I hope I am being fair to the mother when I suggest that she sees these disclosures as part of a seamless process and was clearly frustrated and sometimes distressed by having her allegations reduced to what I would call indictment form. As far as she was concerned it was all the same thing and if she had been permitted to raise all the points there may well have been more than a hundred issues. She denied any suggestion that she was embellishing her case or giving it a sexual spin and although this allegation is referred obliquely into the guardian's very rough handwritten note of her preliminary conversation with mother on 14th January, A doesn't mention it. Dr Berelowitz however does cover the point in that A told Dr Berelowitz that his father did not put his wee wee in his mouth. Mother attributed this to A's difficulty in disclosing to a stranger describing DC F as more familiar.
183. Allegation 9 comprises the allegations that A made when in Skype conversation with his grandmother and witnessed by DC F on the 15^th November.
184. The chronological background is relevant. Father was interviewed by police on 22nd October and it was suggested that mother was informed of the outcome of the police investigation and there was no longer a reason for contact being suspended although her evidence to the court was that she was not told that. She agreed that she had told social workers in a telephone call of 25th October that she believed that matters had not been dealt with appropriately, wanted a change of social worker and she felt let down and disappointed by police and Social Services and it was suggested, and she agreed, that this triggered the visit to the general practitioner as she wanted a forensic examination. She attended her GP to arrange this. It is significant that the GP's statement makes it clear that A was present when she explained his allegations and, as we know, his subsequent referral to the paediatric department was made for a physical examination and a subsequent pre-assessment interview with A on 9th November when a limited disclosure was made which I have already rehearsed earlier in this judgment. Once again, A was exposed to inappropriate conversations and the waters further muddied evidentially speaking.
185. This of course set the scene for 15th November discussion on Skype. The mother told me that she thought there was going to be another ABE interview on 16th November and was therefore surprised to hear from DC F on 15th November that he was in the area and wanted to call. She left A speaking to her parents on Skype while she had a shower. He had already made some allegations in the course of the normal family call with the grandparents. After DC F's arrival he explained that there was to be no further action and admits that she was disappointed and agreed that her distress was plain for all to see and took place in front of A who was in the room. Indeed the discussion with DC F took place with A in the vicinity. This of course is a significant feature in relation to this case and the evidential waters were muddied again.
186. She agreed with the suggestion that the Skype interview was a desperate attempt to keep the investigation open with the proposition that there was nothing to lose.
187. She seemed to be critical of DC F coming round in the way that he could for reasons that I could not readily fathom.
188. She was dismissive of advice that she'd received from Social Services on 22nd October not to question A and her rationale was that it was proper for her to do so if her child was telling her things and it was not being taken into consideration that he was taking time to say small things at a time to his own mother.
189. Her recollection is that her own mother asked the first question and that she and DC F asked questions which of course does not accord with his recollection or indeed his contemporaneous note in the log which I have already rehearsed when summarising his evidence but in any event, she wasn't able to assist with who asked which question. She however conceded that DC F did not ask the question of A as to whether he vomited as he would not have had knowledge of that issue.
190. Her case is that she wanted to give A the opportunity. There is little doubt in my judgment that he was expected to 'perform' and he would have been aware of the expectation.
191. I have already referred to DC F's log. It also contains a record that he was told by mother that she suspected that father had taken A to country E (on a dummy run) when he was holidaying in Spain. This was based on what A had told her about a description of the paternal grandparents' house which sounded like their house in country E . Having heard from father in relation to this issue I am entirely persuaded that it just did not happen.
192. In relation to allegations 11 and 12 as well as of course all the allegations, she has no doubt in her mind that A has been sexually abused by his father. That I fully accept as her mindset.
193. There is little doubt that giving evidence has been a tremendous ordeal for this mother and there is little doubt that she is totally committed to her son who she dearly loves. I was increasingly concerned throughout her evidence that she was prepared to close her mind to the opinion of police and social workers and, more importantly, Dr Berelowitz and in fact it is her mindset that will directly impinge on her application to remove A from the jurisdiction and disputed residence in due course.
194. B is A's father and I have read his statements of 6th November 2010 and 26th November 2012. I have read his responses to the original schedule of allegations, his police interview and perhaps most importantly, his statement of 5th July 2013 in which he deals with allegations 1 to 12 with some particularity. He denies any suggestion of sexual impropriety with his son, A . He also denies any suggestion that he did a dummy run to country E when he went to Spain with A last year on holiday. I accept his evidence. It is an absurd suggestion.
195. I also accept that he has found these allegations devastating and has had to remain cool, calm and collected to make sure that A does not lose his father. He commenced a relationship with the mother in or about 1996 and initially the parties had a sexual relationship but not subsequently until they were married. The relationship appears to have been on and off for many years and was rekindled in late 2006 the parties being married on 27th January 2007.
196. There have of course been extremely acrimonious ancillary relief proceedings in divorce. All the evidence suggests that the marriage was in trouble from the outset and financial aspects have been concluded by final orders on 7th December 2011.
197. In his last and very full statement he makes substantial complaint in relation to the mother's character and various behaviours although indicates that in the early stages of their relationship he found the mother to be exceptionally kind and full of fun but eventually he experienced difficulties with the mother's temper, her attitude to sexual and other physical matters, sexual intercourse, nudity and sexual references and the mother's apparent intolerance to that, her bulimia and her attitude to him. I record the fact that at some stage the parties had counselling. The counselling was unsuccessful. Mother's allegations of violence he said were untrue and, as we know following the difficult circumstances of A's birth in March 2008, he was denied contact to A in hospital on 2nd June 2008 and told by a nurse that he could not see A because the mother had made various allegations against him including the fact that he was controlling and addicted to pornography and that also that he was a sexual threat to A . As a consequence he was not able to see A for two weeks. He denies downloading pornography.
198. It is not necessary for me to fully investigate the rights and wrongs of the parties' relationship other than to record that, in my judgment, it became and more importantly remains, a toxic relationship and A would inevitably have been exposed to that atmosphere almost from the time of his birth with consequent difficulties in relation to contact, problems at handover and allegation and counter allegation to the extent that the parties were finally unable to communicate with one another directly without communications over A having to go through a third party. A is an undoubted casualty of the parents' poor relationship.
199. In cross examination he confirmed that initially his application in 2010 was for residence but he listened to the CAFCASS officer I and took advice and limited the issue to staying contact envisaging that A would remain with his mother.
200. Against that background of course he was taken to his statement of 6th November 2010 in which he catalogues deficits in the mother which would give rise to risk to A including her "very severe bulimia and mother's neglect of A before he was born by her binge eating, smoking, drinking, exercising and purging to name but two."
201. He was bound to concede that there was no medical evidence before the court in relation to the severity of her bulimia save and except a GP's letter of 17th August 2010 indicating that mother's historical bulimia matters were well controlled. His case was that the court may well have been assisted with the full medical records of them both which would include his taking her to Accident & Emergency because of her bulimia.
202. He denied any suggestion that he had rehearsed the various deficits as he saw them in the mother with the intention of hurting the mother. He said he had no desire to hurt anyone.
203. Nevertheless that self statement deals with numerous complaints about the mother involving the fact that he was a sexual threat, ridiculing him and putting him down and the mother's rages in private on daily basis.
204. He accepted that on that view A was potentially at risk in his mother's care and he did think that she had a borderline personality disorder and wanted an independent assessment of both of them.
205. He was challenged, given that background, why it was that he did not pursue a residence order but he said that he had received legal advice that it would be impractical and he would risk losing contact and that he should consider I, , the CAFCASS officer's long experience and so he deferred to that.
206. He was challenged that it was the mother's case that he did not give a significant amount of time to care for A, when the parties were together, but he said he reduced his time at work to look after him and did so between 5pm and 10am. The mother had day time care with help from church friends and a babysitter.
207. He denied any suggestion that he had been unfaithful during the course of the marriage and had paid for sex and mother's allegations regarding unusual sexual predilections were not true nor indeed that he had pornography on the screen when the mother returned from hospital.
208. He accepted that the nurse had not recorded that he had been told that mother had said that he posed a sexual threat and was unable to explain why, but she had still said it.
209. He was able to concede that there had been no finding that any of the allegations made by the mother against him were 'baseless.' He assumes that they were baseless because he was not charged by police and he accepted that there were no findings a Court and therefore it was not right for him to suggest in his statement that the mother has made many allegations which have been proven to be false. It is merely his conclusion.
210. He was challenged that in effect he was bolstering his case by saying that the mother had been proven to be a liar and he accepted that he should have perhaps worded his statement differently.
211. He was challenged that his behaviour in the marriage comprised controlling and verbally abusive behaviour which he rejected but did indicate that he did not want to give up on the marriage because he wanted his son to grow up with a mother and a father but perhaps with the benefit of hindsight it would have been better if the marriage ended earlier.
212. He denied any suggestion as alleged by the mother that he has been swearing in front of A and has taken pains not to say anything negative in front of A. In contradistinction however it is quite apparent from the mother's evidence that A was more than well aware of how the father was regarded by the maternal family and I draw that conclusion after having seen and heard the mother and grandmother and having read their statements. One need in fact to look no further than the events of 15th November.
213. He acknowledges that he is not free from fault but I am bound to say struggled to find any examples of that other than perhaps paying more attention to the mother and trying to understand her and improving communication. There is little doubt that he has struggled to find deficits in his own behaviour but conceded that handovers could have been better.
214. Having read the mother's complaint about his control of the passport and not handing it to her when she needed it to go to country D, I found his explanation for doing so that he had been advised by his solicitor that the mother had to ask for it directly before he would release it nothing short of unreasonable and fanciful. It is plain that there had been numerous requests from the mother's family even to the extent of the maternal grandmother emailing the paternal grandmother in a plea for the passport because at that time it was contemplated that A would be going to country D in December 2012. His unreasonable refusal, behind the shield of legal advice, and his lack of cooperation does indeed smack of control.
215. I have read with care the mother's complaints in relation to the alleged breaches of contact arrangements and considered the father's various responses. On some occasions clearly there were reasonable explanations and on others not but the most telling incident, in my judgment, was on 7th September 2012 when police had to be involved to retrieve A from the father's house. Whatever the rights and wrongs in relation to contact this is a prime example of A being brought directly into the area of dispute and his perception and knowledge of the high level of conflict over contact is one of the features which, in my judgment, leads directly into these disclosures and the attitude that he articulates in relation to his father which does not of course sit easily with the records of good and positive contact.
216. He was taken very thoroughly through his responses to the various sexual allegations contained in the schedule numbered 1 to 12.
217. By way of preamble he has never said that he has been sexually abused as a boy to the mother or indeed accused an uncle or a friend of being a paedophile.
218. He did raise the issue of possible sexual allegations in relation to the mother's family but sought to distance himself, somewhat disingenuously I thought, from any notion that he has suggested that one of the mother's sisters had been abused by the maternal grandfather. What did emerge, of possible relevance, was that he did confirm, as indeed has been confirmed by the maternal family, that one of the mother's sisters was sexually abused by a relative. He went on to suggest that the maternal family's experience about that may be relevant because A's disclosures began in earnest after a visit by the maternal grandmother from country D and A started "singing like a canary."
219. He suggested that the maternal family, as a result of that experience could have concocted this story and possible that they could have indoctrinated his son either deliberately or innocently. I must say I found it an unattractive notion and one that is not grounded in evidence. I firmly reject it.
220. The answer I am afraid more probably lies in the conflicted and difficult relationship between the grown ups and the encouragement that has been given to A to augment his complaints firstly having been given credence by the mother and secondly, against the backdrop of contact disputes.
221. I will deal with his position in relation to the schedule as shortly as possible. Suffice it to say that he denies any wrong doing and accepts that A has indeed said some troubling things but in terms of real events they just did not happen.
222. In relation to allegation 1, he was cross examined in detail in relation to the fact that he showers with A. I found his explanations to be entirely plausible and such conduct does not in any event fall within the category of inappropriate touching or sexual abuse. His practice may in the mother's view be "unusual" I cannot see that it is culpable in any way and it seems a strange allegation to raise in this context.
223. Allegations 2 and 3 effectively involve either touching or rubbing A's wee wee. Father's explanation is that that the only rubbing or touching occurred when he applied Sudocrem to a sore penis. I cannot judge whether or not the mother had complicated views on sexuality and whether she was reluctant to do it. If he did it then it is certainly not sexual touching. He only did it when A's penis was sore and saw it as his duty to take care of him.
224. He gave a similar explanation in relation to allegation 4 namely that he put his fingers up A's bottom. He accepts, in his statement and his oral evidence, that he would clean A over his bottom and genitals. He had to do this because there were faeces in his underwear from time to time. He would clean him up and put cream on him. He accepted that A may not be clean because of what was happening at nursery but it concerned him that on occasions a layer of skin was missing and a lot of cream was needed.
225. I am unable to make any finding in relation to the mother having some sort of religious difficulty with cleaning he son's genitals particularly as I read that the mother has been trained as a nurse and certainly her evidence was that she had no difficulty with that in relation to a baby but a boy of A's age should be able to deal with these issues himself.
226. I have read father's responses to allegations 5 to 12 and notice his denial of abuse and his denial with particular reference to allegation 10 that he has taught A to masturbate.
227. Of course allegation 11 derives from the guardian's note of 14th January in that records that A had said that he slept in the same bed as dad. The father said that this was not the case that he has his own bed in his own room which was on the same floor as him in the house. After Mrs Justice Pauffley decided that contact should be supervised by the maternal grandmother she stayed in the father's house. Sometimes when A found it difficult to go to sleep the father lay by his bed holding his hand. The grandmother was present.
228. The next morning A would wake but his grandmother had sleep problems and she would hear A get up and if necessary, as I understand it, he would lie by the bed to settle him down but with the grandmother in the room.
229. He denied any intention that he had planned or was planning to retire to country E reiterating that he came here when he was 13 years old. He went there in relation to his father's death in 2003 and in 2009 to collect documents for the ancillary relief proceedings. He has no desire to return and take A there and I believe him.
230. He was taken to the various reports of the positives in the mother's care of A including Social Services' assessments that make it plain that all main areas of his needs are being met by his mother. He was also taken to Dr Berelowitz's observation that A displayed an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards his mother. The father said that he was pleased about this and liked to think that he had contributed by not making negative remarks about the mother.
231. He seemed to be receptive, in live evidence in any event, to the notion that there should be a pause for thought after fact finding to see how the mother reacts and whether this shapes her behaviour, thoughts and feelings before deciding the issue as to whether or not A should reside with him, although submitted at the end of the hearing that residence should be transferred. It may have to be, but such an application is premature.
232. At the conclusion of his evidence I was left with the impression that he has played his part in the disastrous contact issues that have arisen between the parents and he has a tendency to be pedantic and over legalistic, and at times, controlling. However after hearing his evidence and all the other evidence I am prepared to accept his evidence that he has not abused his son sexually at all, after carefully looking at all the other evidence in the round.
233. K is A's paternal grandmother and the author of a statement in which she deals with a variety of issues including her relationship with her son, her relationship with the mother and contact issues. She made it clear that she did not think that it was her role to interfere and had no knowledge in relation to the background to contact disputes.
234. I did however draw from her evidence one or two issues. Firstly, she was concerned, as indeed am I, that the police were drawn into contact issues and was present on 7th September when police officers attended with the mother to collect A This is evidence that once again this little boy is placed at the heart of the dispute between parents in relation to what should be straightforward arrangements and she is right to be upset about it whether or not she knew the background.
235. She was quizzed thoroughly on her involvement in the supervised contact arrangement that took place after Mrs Justice Paulfrey's order and Mrs Justice Paulfrey's telephone conversation with her.
236. I am satisfied that she kept her word to Mrs Justice Pauffley and supervised that contact adequately and that there was no opportunity for any abuse as alleged by the mother. Incidentally I am also satisfied that she accompanied father and A to the Science Museum on 12th January.

The Law

237. I summarise below the relevant legal principles are summarised below.
238. In relation to the law as to the standard and burden of proof in cases such as there are it is necessary for me to summarise very briefly indeed the approach of the House of Lords in H & R and the cases that following it, notably Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] EWCA Civ 558, [2004] 2 FLR 838 and Re U (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof) and Re B [2004] EWCA Civ 567, [2004] 2 FLR 263. What emerges from those cases is this,

a) a court can only act on the evidence

b) whoever makes the allegation of abuse undertakes the burden of proving it

c) the standard of proof is the balance of probability

d) the court should only act on the facts which are so proved

e) of course the court may rely on all proved facts however trivial in themselves in coming to an overall conclusion.

239. The established case in the House of Lords of B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 made clear that the standard of proof in establish any type of facts in children's proceedings is the balance of probabilities. That case was clarified by what Baroness Hale said as follows:

"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 or 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."

240. It was Lord Hoffmann in the self-same case who reminded all concerned that "the law operates a binary system in which the only values are zero and one." That means in short form if legal rules require a fact to be proved a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for finding that it might have happened. In the leading judgment Baroness Hale concluded:

"A judge is not allowed to sit on the fence."

241. Also I have in mind the broad canvass approach set out in Re U and Re B and firmly in mind the approach to the evidence within the fact finding exercise set out in Re T:

"… evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed 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 local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.

242. I also note per Charles J in A County Council v K, D and L [2005] EWHC 144 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 851, at para [28]:

"[In] my view, in determining the facts, a court should have regard to the guidance given in R v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720 and R v Middleton [2000] TLR 293. As appears therefrom, a conclusion that a person is lying or telling the truth about point A does not mean that he is lying or telling the truth about point B. Also I accept that there can be many reasons why a person might not tell the truth to a court concerned with the future upbringing of a child."

243. I have considered paragraphs 3.24 to 3.68 of the 2011 edition of the ABE Guide together with the judgment of TW v A City Council [2011] EWCA civ 17 which gives helpful guidance in relation to the adequacy or otherwise of an ABE interview and the manner in which departures from the Guidance should be treated.

Conclusion and findings

244. For the purposes of this judgment and in accordance with the indication given from time to time during the course of the trial I am confining this judgment to consideration of the twelve allegations contained in the mother's schedule as to whether A has been sexually abused by his father together with an additional finding proposed by the father that if those findings are not made out that the mother has emotionally abused A . The other applications I put to one side for the time being.
245. I should make it plain that the court has heard six days of live evidence, there are four full ring binders of evidence in chief. I have seen the ABE interview, read Counsels' opening submissions and listened to their oral closing submissions. This has been a monumental piece of litigation and there remains outstanding the father's application for residence and the mother's application to remove A from the jurisdiction and it will be self evident as to why those matters have to remain outstanding in view of the findings that I make.
246. I have at the forefront of my mind that the burden of proof lies on the mother to prove her allegations. The context is clear from the chronology. A has said a number of worrying things to the mother, to his guardian and others, and in his ABE interview from approximately the autumn of 2011 to 16th January 2013. This has been against the backdrop of disputed handover arrangements between the parties and litigation over residence and contact. As I believe my judgment has made plain A has been exposed to that litigation and to his parents' toxic and uncooperative relationship with one another in a wholly inappropriate way. His tentative disclosures have grown and grown against the backdrop of those disputes and given credence by the mother in her heightened emotional state who has chosen to believe the troubling things that A has said and has encouraged him, unintentionally perhaps to say more, so the disclosures, have to so to speak, grown in the telling.
247. It is a significant feature that in a telephone conversation with Social Services of 12th October she was challenged whether she had reported any of A's disclosures to police and professionals and she stated that she had previously reported them to police who dismissed them as domestic incidents and she mentioned them only when the father failed to return A to her on time.
248. I have in the course of the hearing examined each and every one of those allegations in considerable detail. The only truly independent source of evidence is A's ABE interview which is flawed in all the ways outlined by Dr Berelowitz whose evidence I accept after carefully balancing that evidence with the mother's evidence in particular.
249. I have little doubt that the mother has believed and does believe that the allegations are true. I accept entirely that that has been an evolving belief which has become more pressing. I accept that she has not manufactured any of that evidence but there is little doubt that A has been asked to repeat it and that she has questioned him constantly. I am very concerned that therefore this is an expectation in his mind as to what he is intended to say and this belief arises out of an honest but mistaken belief by the mother that she is right and that the police, Social Services, Dr Berelowitz and the guardian are wrong.
250. When she gave her live evidence she did of course on occasion appear evasive and inconsistent but I throw into the balance that she was very emotionally affected by the process and has convinced herself of the father's guilt. I find that all the allegations do not cross the evidential threshold applying the test I have already rehearsed and therefore they are not true.
251. The father did not cover himself in any particular glory when he came to give his evidence. It is true that he was less emotive but I retained a view that he could well have been manipulative and controlling in the past and he has been anxious to deploy any weapon he could to discredit the mother. It may be that is a product of adversarial litigation but there is little doubt that A is at the centre of this discord and has been harmed as a consequence.
252. The changing form of the allegations has been a source of worry to the court and I have also thrown into the balance the guardian's visit to A on 3rd July of this year when she interviewed A at school and the mother had not been told in advance. A either could not remember or had forgotten what the father has alleged to have done to him when he described him as "naughty." It is literally incredible that if A had been abused by way of oral sex or digital penetration by way of example that he would have no recollection. I mention that as a singularly significant piece of evidence together with the wealth of evidence of positive interaction between the father and A which gives the clear lie as to these allegations given Dr Berelowitz's evidence which, as I have said, I accept. Allegation 1 does not in any event amount to an allegation of sexual abuse and the other allegations, in my judgment, are not proved.
253. It is therefore evident that the mother's application to go to country D with A cannot presently proceed and Dr Berelowitz makes the position abundantly clear. For the mother to remove A to country D with a false and erroneous belief that he had been abused, which eventually A would come to believe himself, would effectively mean not only that A would have a poor view of himself in the future as his father's child but also it would, in my judgment, effectively end the relationship between A and his father.
254. I have been asked to make a finding by the father that A has been emotionally abused as a consequence of the allegations being untrue. I have little doubt in making a finding that A has been significantly harmed in the form of emotional abuse as a consequence of the high levels of conflict between his parents but I stop short of making that finding against the mother at this stage as it would be premature. Dr Berelowitz has given helpful guidance in relation to this issue both in writing and in oral evidence. There is little doubt that the mother has had a horrible preoccupation with the fact that they are true.
255. He says that mother has been clear that she has been confident for a very long time that A has been sexually abused by his father. He says "the subject seems to have been extremely strongly on her mind for a very considerable time. One is also left with the impression that she has repeatedly discussed this with [A]." This of course is one of the reasons that goes to the inherent unreliability of A's utterances.
256. He goes on to say "it is of course reasonable under certain circumstances for a parent mistakenly to conclude that their child has been sexually abused by someone else." That does not constitute emotional abuse. I would not go so far in this judgment to say that the mother's view is so incompetently mistaken and so falsely based but it is certainly right that she has persistently refused to open her mind to other possibilities.
257. However if this view is found on independent assessment to continue, unreasonably following a judgment that it has not, it inevitably gives rise to the substantial risk that the mother's psychological treatment of A is contrary to his interests and needs.
258. Dr Berelowitz indicates that, if after repeated analysis it is thought that the child has not been sexually abused but that the parent maintains that the child was then this potentially constitutes emotional abuse. I harbour a real concern about mother's entrenched view. There is real potential for emotional harm if allegations are reignited. I invite guidance from the guardian as to what form this assessment should take place as it may need some expertise to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the mother's mindset and whether she is capable of putting the allegations to one side and promoting contact to the father. I would be concerned if her acknowledgement of the judgment amounted to nothing more than lip service as the litigation concerning A will only rumble on the for the rest of his childhood.
259. I am concerned also that there should be some sort of analysis or assessment of the mother's emotional and psychological fragility which was evident in the witness box.
260. I therefore decline to make a finding other than to identify the real and very present risk that A is likely to be emotionally abused if the mother is not able to deal with the findings of the court and promote contact with the father in a proper way.
261. After hearing representations I will give directions for the further conduct of this case and for contact.