England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BLACKPOOL
(Sitting at Leyland)

		29th January 2015

1. JUDGE SINGLETON: This judgment has been transcribed. That is primarily to assist those working with the child who is the subject of the proceedings but as I also propose that it should be published the transcribers have anonymised it and prepared a code explaining who is referred to by the various letters and combinations of letters. That code is to be placed on the Court file and may be distributed only to those parties entitled to see the judgment without anonymisation.
2. In this matter, Lancashire County Council have brought an application for a Care Order in respect of GE, who has also been known as HB. I am going to refer her as "G" throughout. G is twelve years of age, born on the 8^th October 2002. She is the child of ABC and DE, also known as F. ABC has been represented during the hearing before me by Ms. Saeed. DE, or F, her putative father, has not been located during these proceedings and has not participated.
3. When she was 13 months of age, G was placed with the Third and Fourth Respondents by her mother. The Third Respondent is JK, who has been represented by Mr. Hey of counsel, and the Fourth Respondent is LM, who has been represented by Mr. Cahill of counsel. They hold a residence order in respect of G and therefore have parental responsibility for her, that residence order not having been discharged. It is part of my final order that it is discharged and their parental responsibility will come to an end.
4. G herself has been represented by Mrs. Barron-Eaves during the hearing. Mrs. Barron-Eaves was instructed by Mrs. Jackie Couldridge, who is the local area CAFCASS manager, standing in the shoes of the appointed Children's Guardian, Ian Parker, who has prepared an in depth initial and final analysis. These are two carefully thought through reports from Mr. Parker. He is off sick and therefore Mrs. Couldridge has attended and given Mrs. Barron-Eaves any necessary instructions.
5. During last week, I have heard evidence in the application by Lancashire County Council for a care order in respect of G. G, as I have said, is now twelve years old. She was born in Luton in 2002, and from the age of 13 months, in approximately November 2003, until the 14^th March 2013, she lived with JK and LM. Her mother had placed her with them under an informal fostering arrangement. Her mother is from Zimbabwe. She is black and she is an asylum-seeker. I have not investigated the circumstances in which she came to place G with JK and LM. At the time the mother was involved in a relationship with JK's son, NK.
6. It has not been necessary for me to investigate what may have been the factors prompting her to do so. I note that she had the difficulty of being both HIV positive and also having a very uncertain immigration status at the time of that placement. Her immigration status now seems to have resolved. I also note that an informal private fostering arrangement might be seen as more culturally normal in Zimbabwean society than perhaps it would be here.
7. There has been criticism of the mother's care of G by JK and LM. It forms no part of this judgment to consider those allegations, and none of the evidence that was called before me related to them. I do not consider that they are relevant whatever the extent or not that they might be made out. Suffice it to say, the mother has co-operatively engaged with Lancashire County Council since G came into their care, in circumstances I am going to relate, and she plainly is somebody motivated to do the best by her daughter in what have turned out to be extremely difficult and distressing circumstances.
8. JK and LM are white British people. Until the 8^th September 2005 when the residence order to which I have already made reference was made in the York County Court, the mother, Ms. B, had contact with G, but the order that was made at that time limited her contact to indirect contact. She has had no contact with G since then until G came into the care of the local authority. Since that time in March 2013, she has had indirect contact. She has been present and represented throughout, but really the facts of this matter have largely occurred without any involvement by her. The threshold criteria with which I have been concerned do not impact upon her.
9. In February 2010, JK and LM moved with G from Staxton, which is near Scarborough in North Yorkshire, to Lytham St. Anne's in Lancashire. G was seven years of age at that point. There were some unusual concerns about this child in June 2010, when two reports concerning her were made to the Police from a neighbouring property, and also some concerns about her on the part of her two primary schools in St. Anne's. A core assessment was prepared which recommended no further action following the June 2010 reports. There was, therefore, no formal intervention by this local authority in respect of her until March 2013.
10. These are the precipitating facts in outline. During 2011 and 2012, because of concerns about G's social and emotional presentation at her school, her school arranged, with the consent of JK, for her to have weekly sessions with RC, a qualified and experienced counsellor, who was then commissioned by the local education authority to work in various schools in the area. G's sessions with her largely covered her social and emotional life at school. However, on the 12^th March 2013, during one of those sessions, G made a number of revelations to RC of cruelty and abuse by JK upon her. The school immediately and appropriately involved the Social Services and plans were made for G not to return home that day.
11. The Social Services subsequently changed their advice to the school and remarkably and, for my part, shockingly, G was sent home to JK and LM from school, by which point JK had been told by the school that she had made disclosures and warned that Social Services were to be involved and that G might not be returned home to her care that night. G was not taken to school the next day 13^th March 2013, the family claimed to be viewing properties in Yorkshire where they wished to return. The Police had to go out and check on her later that day. On the following day, 14^th March 2013, JK was required to take G to Blackpool Victoria hospital for medical examination by Dr. Rowlands, who is a consultant paediatrician. He found signs on G of a significant number of old scars and injuries all over her body. His findings caused him to seek a second clinical opinion from Ms. Falder at Alder Hey hospital. Ms. Falder is a consultant paediatric plastic surgeon and Alder Hey is one of this region's specialist tertiary referral hospitals. Ms. Falder examined G on the 21^st March 2013 and confirmed findings of scars and scarring. She considered that the scars she observed on G's lower buttocks, thighs, legs, knees and dorsum of both feet were the result of scalding, or in the case of the right knee, alternatively as a result of deep abrasion or a combination of abrasion and scalding.
12. G was interviewed under Achieving Best Evidence conditions by a Police Officer on the 17^th April 2013. She later renewed her counselling sessions with RC. Her descriptions of how JK treated her, have remained consistent and have been repeated in those sessions with RC, and perhaps most particularly in a session which occurred in July 2014.
13. The local authority case is that all of those injuries were inflicted either by JK or LM, or both of them, and that whoever did not inflict such injuries on each occasion was guilty of a gross failure to protect. It is also their case that their care of G was, in essence, very cruel indeed, including by way of example only, allowing their three Rottweiler dogs to frighten her and to bite her.
14. G has been living in foster care since 14^th March 2013. She was accommodated until these proceedings commenced, under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989. JK and LM have never sought to have any further contact with her after consenting to her accommodation on the 14^th March 2013. Her mother was found and traced in May 2013, and the local authority have attempted to rebuild the relationship between them. Sadly, those attempts have not led to the resumption of direct contact, because it would seem that G has a very negative perspective of her birth mother and resists all attempts to rebuild that relationship.
15. All of the parties before the Court are agreed that G should be made subject to a Final Care Order, and that the local authority's plan for her to remain in foster care with ongoing life story work and therapeutic input, should be approved. G had to change foster placement in May 2014 because her first family were moving to Scotland. Her present foster carer is committed to caring for her during the rest of her childhood. There are no plans at present for direct contact with any other family member. G's mother accepts that, but is fully engaged, as I have already related, in working with the local authority with a view to a rehabilitation of her relationship with her daughter.
16. JK and LM indignantly deny the threshold allegations, and I have, during the hearing I have conducted, largely been engaged in a fact-finding exercise to determine their truth or otherwise. The local authority have taken the opportunity of the hearing to enhance their care package in response to the Children's Guardian's suggestions, communicated through Mrs. Couldridge and Mrs. Barron-Eaves, and the result of that is that there has not been any need for me to make any determination upon the merits of the plan now before the Court, because all parties are agreed that the plan that is before the Court should be implemented, and that I should approve it.
17. I turn now to the proceedings and this hearing. The application for a Care Order was made in May 2014. G had by that time been in the care of the local authority for 14 months as an accommodated child. I note that the statement of the social worker, Suzanne Winward, the initial statement, was dated January 2014. I do understand, with a beleaguered local authority where there is unlikely to be dispute about where a child's future lies, that it might not be seen as necessary to proceed with expedition to commence care proceedings but it does seem to me to have been rather a long delay. I also acknowledge that the local authority had to trace G's mother and work with her, and there may at points have been no conflict with her which required resolution through proceedings; indeed, that has ended up being the case in any event. However, given the fact that there was still a Residence Order in favour of the informal carers, JK and LM who therefore held parental responsibility for G, it seems to me appropriate to comment that the proceedings should have been brought with greater despatch.
18. The proceedings have been case managed until the final hearing before me by His Honour Judge Rawkins, the Designated Family Judge for Lancashire. He conducted an Issues Resolution Hearing on the 12^th December 2014 when all the Respondents were present and separately represented. At that point the case was listed before me and all of the Respondents were ordered to attend. Judge Rawkins' order on that date records that neither JK nor LM were to advance any positive case against the mother. Their contributions, both during Police interviews and in statements, tended to suggest that some of the injuries that were discovered on the 14^th March 2013 might have been inflicted before G came into their care. They clarified at that hearing that that was not to be their case, and perhaps just as importantly, they also clarified at that hearing that they were not to challenge any of the medical evidence.
19. I dwell on the events of the hearing that I have conducted more than I would ordinarily, because they were somewhat unusual, and it may be important for the purposes of those who may have to seek ex post facto public funding for the video link that became necessary, that I incorporate exactly what occurred, in this judgment.
20. On the first day of the hearing which the parties were ordered to attend, which was Tuesday, 20^th January 2015, LM attended, JK did not. I had been informed by counsel for the local authority via her case summary over the weekend that JK might be claiming that she was too unwell to attend Court. Indeed, her counsel, Mr. Hey, produced a letter from her General Practitioner which confirmed that she had been suffering recent symptoms of what appears to have been a chronic neck condition, and that a recent scan had demonstrated prolapses of two of the discs in her neck. What it did not say was that she was unfit to come to Court. It merely recorded the fact that this was JK's own opinion. I did not consider that that letter could justify her failure to comply with Judge Rawkins' direction that she attend the hearing.
21. There was no application for an adjournment, and I proceeded to hear an argument advanced by Mr. Cahill for LM, supported by Mr. Hey for JK, that I ought not to embark upon a fact-finding element of this hearing at all. I delivered on that day a judgment explaining why I did not accept that argument and explaining why I considered I should exercise my discretion in favour of undertaking a fact-finding element in this hearing.
22. I went on, on that day, to hear the evidence of two witnesses, PC and EP. They were, as I am going to come to describe, witnesses to some rather disturbing events during the summer of 2010. JK, of course, was absent from the Court when that evidence was given. Mr. Hey, who represented her, was content to undertake the case on her behalf, having full instructions. In fact, during that day, JK appeared to go to ground and did not respond to any attempts to communicate with her during the day by anybody, including the process-server who attended at her address in south-east Yorkshire, that evening, to serve her with the order of His Honour Judge Rawkins from the 12^th December to which I had attached a Penal Notice on the first day of the hearing. Furthermore, I issued a witness summons with an abridged time of service which required her to come to Court on Thursday, 22^nd January 2015.
23. However, it would seem that she was made aware of these orders by LM, who returned home on the evening of the 20^th January and on Wednesday the 21^st, it is accepted that they both set off from south-east Yorkshire to come to Lancaster where I was hearing the matter. They only got as far as Huddersfield when heavy snow on the motorway brought all the traffic on that motorway to a standstill and they returned home apparently to coincide with the process-server, who was waiting for them to attempt again to serve JK with my orders of the previous day. I accept that their failure to attend Court from that point was for reasons beyond their control, namely very heavy snow on the roads.
24. Neither sought an adjournment of the case on Wednesday the 21^st, and I proceeded to hear on that day the evidence of RC, to whom I have already referred in summarising the precipitating concerns, and of Samantha Ambler, the key social worker in the case. Both, as I have already said, were represented by counsel to whom they had given full instructions and who cross-examined the witnesses on their behalf. The hearing that I was conducting could not have been fair or meaningful, however, without their oral evidence and participation, and now the prospects of them travelling from south-east Yorkshire to Lancaster were minimal, thanks to the weather. Arrangements were therefore hastily made for them to attend by video link. There were no Courts local to their home which had either video suites or courtrooms available at such short notice. Resort had to be had to a commercial facility in Hull. JK and LM attended the hearing, therefore, in Hull, via a video link on the 22^nd and 23^rd January 2015. I heard their evidence over that link, which was of a sufficiently high quality to make that a proper process.
25. I have already made it clear, and I repeat in this judgment, that I consider that the costs of the video link facility are a proper disbursement upon the legal aid certificates of JK and LM. Their attendance to give evidence was crucial and directed by the Court. Neither they nor any other party could have had a fair hearing without their attendance, but the video link was the only means by which that attendance and evidence could be secured. I give liberty to any party to apply for further directions if this part of the Judgment proves problematic. Without the link, the hearing would have had to be adjourned at the risk of distress and delay for G and, no doubt, much greater and wasted public expense than the cost of the link.
26. I turn to the law which applies to the fact-finding exercise that I have undertaken. It is neither contentious nor complicated. I am required to weigh the evidence to enable me to make findings or not on a simple balance of probabilities. If the evidence allows me to say that I consider something is more likely than not, then I can find that something as a fact. That is from Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UK House of Lords 35.
27. I should identify who is in the pool of possible perpetrators, where the evidence leads to the real possibility in each instance that that person inflicted injuries. That is North Yorkshire County Council -v- SA [2003] EWCA Civ 839, which has been approved in Re SB [2009] UKSC 17.
28. In this case, because I do consider that both JK and LM failed to be truthful in their evidence and I am satisfied they told deliberate lies from time to time, I must also remind myself, in a quasi-Lucas Jury direction, that I cannot assume that the telling of such lies on its own permits me to infer that the liar in each or either case is responsible for either inflicting injuries or for failing to protect G.

My Impressions of the Witnesses

29. I am going to start with JK and LM. JK gave evidence on the third day of the hearing her co-operation having been secured by the process I have related. She looked, over the video link, at least initially, to be in some pain with her neck which she was holding very stiffly at first. However, I noted that during the day that effect wore off, and when she became more irritated in response to the questions she was being asked, her physical demeanour seemed to me to become less stiff and more relaxed. She was an entirely unimpressive witness. She did her best to give as minimal and vague a set of answers as she could get away with whilst at the same time maintaining an angry and indignant denial of the allegations she faces. Her manner throughout was obdurate.
30. She was highly critical of the evidence of the witnesses from the X Unit next door to her house in St. Anne's, suggesting a long-standing dispute between their household and the unit over trivial matters. I am going to come on to deal with that evidence in a moment. She was highly critical of the school nurse at Y school in Lytham St. Anne's, suggesting that the nurse had been abusive of JK when she referred to Yorkshire as "The wrong side of the hill". This is ironic in a case where I am going to find that so little has been done by JK and LM to promote a positive self-image in G, with reference to her black African identity.
31. I note in particular in respect of JK, that during her evidence, she repeated with alarming facility, albeit purporting to quote others, the highly offensive "N" word, which was being used, she claimed, to describe G's ethnicity. I also note during her Police interview when relating what marks G may or may not have had on her body, in reference to a Mongolian blue spot mark that G had on her low back when she was much younger, that GK referred to this as something which "blacks have".
32. She was highly critical of Dr. Rowlands' examination of G. Her account of G self-harming by pouring or splashing boiling water over herself, or putting her fingers under a hot tap, was frankly incredible and also inconsistently delivered. At no point in her evidence did she seem to show any compassion or affection for G. She was extremely critical of G as a demanding child and she seemed unable to take any responsibility for any of the rather disturbed behaviours she was relating, preferring quite unrealistically to attribute responsibility for that to ill-treatment during G's early first months with her mother. For example, she had no insight into how completely inappropriate it was, if true, to force G to clear up her own faecal matter in the garden. Whether or not that actually occurred, it was clear that both JK and LM could see nothing wrong with it being done. She demonstrated more warmth when talking about the animals that she and LM keep and kept than in talking about G.
33. I cannot imagine what caused her to think that she ought to take on the care of this little girl, so unsuited to the task did she seem. I can only speculate that her motivation was entirely superficial, based on her perception that G was a cute child when she first came to them. She had no adequate accounts or explanations for the many marks of injury found all over G other than a goose bite, self-harm, cat scratch marks or G scratching her own eczema. She was insistent that G's non-attendance at school on the 13^th March 2013 had been pre-arranged. I consider this to be highly unlikely. Her account of where the couple were looking at a property in Yorkshire has vacillated. On the 13^th March 2013, she told the Lancashire Police they were looking for property in York. In evidence to me she said it was Slingsby, referring to a Pickering estate agent. I think it likely that G was kept off school because of the information that she had made disclosures and not because they were going househunting.
34. JK was not a credible witness. In general, where her evidence conflicts with that of others, I prefer that of others. That includes where her evidence conflicts with the written evidence and records. She has had the advantage of representation and party status throughout these proceedings and although she seems to have paid scant attention herself to the documents in proceedings, she cannot complain that she has not had the opportunity to challenge that written evidence.
35. I turn to LM. He was also an unimpressive witness. He displayed stubborn annoyance with the process and the questions he was being asked. He seemed to want to be deliberately vague and to give minimal answers. His answers were often inconsistent and sometimes inconsistent with each other within a very short time of each answer being given until eventually I put to him that he seemed to be guessing, and warned him of the serious nature of the oath. Remarkably, he admitted that he had been guessing. There were times when it was plain that he was looking to Ms. K, in the room in Hull, for some help and prompting with his evidence. Like her, he was highly critical of numbers of professionals, including the head-teacher at T school, almost implying that the disclosures that G was reported to have made on the 13^th March have been born in some way of a resentment on the part of the head-teacher that he had been obliged to offer G a place at that school after an appeal process.
36. LM, frankly, struck me as something of a concrete thinker. He was not able to disguise his ignorance on issues of race and identity. At one point, when talking about G's progress in their care and the claimed problems she presented to them, he said, "When we first got her she was a lovely little girl. As she grew up, she was strange and disturbed. Maybe it was because she was African". Later he said that "G did not want to be black. She thought she was ugly and wanted beautiful long, straight hair". G's hair is African hair, it is dark and densely curly. He claimed that he had once approached a "coloured" lady with beautiful hair in the supermarket and had asked her what she did with her hair, in order that they could treat G's similarly. The superficiality and crudity of this completely escaped him.
37. Like JK, at no point in his evidence did he display any warmth or affection for G or any empathy. He referred to her repeatedly as a liar, manipulative and devious, and at times it was hard to listen to him because there seemed to be real antipathy on his part for G.
38. I took some time to review my impressions of JK and LM because I became concerned that the narration of my extremely negative conclusions about each of them might seem unbalanced. I look, therefore, for something positive to say in either case which might balance the picture. Unfortunately, it is not possible in that regard for me to go beyond those matters which might appear simply to be banal and superficial in the context of this very serious case. Both were smart and punctual and, it would seem from the professional evidence which is available, kept homes which were extremely well-presented, clean and tidy and where their domestic animals are well cared for.
39. Having come to those conclusions about the only two people who can really tell us what really happened to this child, I turn to the chronology that I have attempted to compile from the evidence which I have read and heard in this case, to see whether I can make sense of the injuries that were evident on her body at the point of the local authority's intervention. Both JK and LM insist that when G came to live with them in November or December of 2003, her skin and hair were in a terrible state. It is, therefore, relevant to note that on the 16^th October 2003, the mother took G to hospital when she was concerned that she may have been injured through smoke inhalation during a fire at the mother's flat. G was very thoroughly examined on that date in Luton and Dunstable NHS Trust hospital. She was observed to be well, happy and well-hydrated. Her skin was without rashes. It seems, therefore, that the protests of JK and LM as to how she was when she first came to them, are not well-supported by the available independent evidence.
40. On the 25^th March of 2004, there was a GP referral of G to Dr. Alastair Falconer, a consultant paediatrician. I think this was primarily for HIV testing. However, subsequently he examined G because of problems with her feeding and eating. On the 2^nd July 2004, he saw G and examined her thoroughly, according to his notes. He noted the Mongolian blue spot on her low back. This fact establishes that his examination was of her unclothed, notwithstanding the assertion of JK that he did not take her clothes off. He notes no signs of injury at that point. After that because her weight was no longer falling off the centile scales, there was no further involvement, apart from a check-up in December 2004. The key date, however, is the 2^nd July 2004. There were no injuries on the child at that point.
41. As I have said already, on the 8^th September 2004 a Residence Order was made in the York County Court in favour of JK and LM. The mother has only had indirect contact with her since and has not seen her. It is, therefore, absolutely clear, if it is not clear already from everything I have said, that the injuries this child sustained have nothing to do with her mother.
42. G started school in North Yorkshire in October 2007. In June 2009 she told the head teacher at her Yorkshire primary school that JK hits her. On the 29^th June 2009, she was taken to a nurse at the GP practice with an open wound to her face, and a history was given that she had been pecked by a goose six days ago and that had healed with a small scar by the 15^th July 2009. In March 2013, G was still attributing a scar on her face to a goose bite. As I will come on to make clear, I cannot say whether that is correct or not, but there are other injuries to be dealt with.
43. On the 9^th October 2007 G, who had been referred to CAMHS for bed-wetting, was discharged because there had been no contact for some time by JK or LM. JK made it plain during her oral evidence to me and I think also during her Police interview that she did not consider it to be a very useful intervention.
44. In February 2010, as I have already related, the family moved from Yorkshire to Lancashire and G began at Y school on the 8^th March 2010. It is noteworthy, however, that on the 5^th February 2010, G had gone to her school in North Yorkshire telling her teacher that it would be her last day. The school had received no other notice of the move. JK was telephoned and confirmed that they were moving. She was vague about where G would be going to school in Lancashire.
45. The school's pen picture of G from North Yorkshire records their concern about her attendance and also the fact that JK had said they had trouble with neighbours' attitudes although the school perceived G to be happy and had not observed any difficulties with other pupils. The school had reported G to their local Social Services on one occasion because of concern about a mark on G's face.
46. I turn to the incident that I have already referred to which started on the 20^th June of 2010. On that day PC and EP, who gave oral evidence during this hearing, reported what they perceived to be ill-treatment of G observed from the next door property to the family home, to the Police. Those witnesses both work at the X Unit, which is a mental health unit run from the property, as I have said, next door to the family home, where JK and LM were living with G, three Rottweiler dogs, at least one cat and a large pig. It can be gleaned from the police documents that the precise date of the first Police referral was the 20^th June 2010.
47. PC is a mother of three children herself. She is also chairman of the local Sea Cadets charity and works with children in that capacity. She was so concerned by what she saw on the 20^th June 2010 that in addition to reporting it to EP, who is the deputy manager of the unit, she also wrote her own notes about it and kept them in her Filofax. She eventually assumed that nothing was to be done and destroyed those notes some two years later. She struck me as entirely respectable and completely independent and she was doing her best to tell me accurately and without overstatement what she remembered.
48. During her evidence, JK suggested a history of trouble between their household and the cleaners on the X Unit, I think even trying to attribute one of the injuries G described having suffered at her hands, from a blow to her head with a mop, to them. None of this was put to PC or indeed to EP, and I consider it to be simply malicious fiction on JK's part, made up on the day of her oral evidence.
49. PC used to look into the garden of JK's and LM's property from a staircase at the X, initially very interested in the large pig she could see from there. One particular day she noticed G whom she had seen out with JK and LM and their dogs on other occasions. She noticed her on this occasion because she was standing unnaturally still in full sunshine. G did not move or play. PC saw JK come out with a plate of sandwiches which PC assumed were to be for the child, but in fact they were given to the pig, and JK spoke harshly to G.
50. Shortly after that, G started to shift about and cross her legs. PC assumed that she needed the toilet, and indeed shortly thereafter the child plainly wet herself. JK again emerged from the house, but this time shouted at the child. She seemed to make her remove and fold each item of clothing that she was wearing and made her peg her dress on the washing line. She called her, so far as PC could hear, a "dirty little bitch" and said that G would have to wear that dress "Tomorrow". PC tried and failed to take a photograph on her phone of what she was observing, but could not do so because the phone was new to her and she could not operate the camera controls. The child was then left outside naked until JK harshly called her in. G had to go back out again for her shoes.
51. PC reported what she had seen to EP and she reported the matter to the Police. On another occasions, PC had observed G picking up faeces in the garden which she, perhaps not unreasonably, thought were dog faeces. She also observed G surrounded by the Rottweilers and had the impression that she flinched. Overall, she was disturbed by how cold JK was to the child.
52. I consider that PC was a witness of truth. The minor discrepancies between her account and that of EP pointed out during cross-examination can, it seems to me, be accounted for by the lapse of time and tend to support rather than detract from my impression of a truthful witness. It was put to her that the faeces G was picking up may have been human rather than canine, it being JK's and LM's case that G would hide faecal matter from her own underwear, in the garden. I do not think they understood how very little this helped their case, even if it were true. It demonstrated again an approach to this child entirely devoid of nurture, compassion or understanding.
53. EP is the deputy manager of the X Unit and the person to whom PC reported her concerns following the first incident. EP is also a parent herself. Normally her work at the unit would not take her to the window from which PC had made her observations but she went to look for herself at the garden a matter of weeks after the first incident, when PC had told her that the child was again there and standing still. EP looked out of the window and observed the child standing unnaturally still in the garden. On this occasion, EP shouted out to the child was she okay. That prompted JK to come into the garden and EP asked her if everything was okay. She merely nodded and both JK and G went back into the house. EP considered, perhaps not surprisingly, the behaviour of JK to be very strange.
54. Both she and PC were prepared to give statements to Social Services and to the Police. Social Services undertook a core assessment after these allegations were made but they never attended and spoke with these witnesses. Although the Police came and took statements, they never came back with a typed copy to be signed and processed. It seemed to me that EP was also obviously a truthful witness, doing her best to tell me the truth accurately.
55. During her cross-examination, some differences emerged between what she recalled PC had reported to her and what PC had said for herself in her statement to the local authority and to me in oral evidence. Those accounts were internally consistent. I do not consider that the differences reflect anything other than the passage of time. For the avoidance of doubt, I consider that PC's first-hand account of what she saw reflects the facts rather than EP's recollection of what PC told her she had seen. I consider the evidence of both of those witnesses to be highly significant.
56. I turn back to the chronology. As I have already related, the assessment by Lancashire County Council Social Services in August 2010 concluded that there was no supporting evidence for the concerns about G, and they determined that it was appropriate to take no further action. I am concerned about the quality and superficiality of that assessment. I am sure it will be looked into.
57. During the autumn of 2010 at Y school a standard referral was made by the school nurse who was somewhat concerned about G, her presentation and her weight. She made the usual attempts to engage G's carers in the health monitoring process. She was not very successful. On the 2^nd March 2011, JK told the school that she did not wish G to be seen by the school nurse unless she, JK, was present. The school nurse noted that JK seemed to be reluctant to access professionals. At that point G's school attendance was only 82 per cent. The school nurse was considering reporting her concern to Social Services.
58. On the 7^th March 2011 Y school noted that G had come back to school after a week away from school with a mark under her right eye which looked like a fading bruise. On the 22^nd March 2011 it was noted at school that G always wears tights and will not change for PE. On the 21^st June 2011, the school nurse recorded that JK would not come into school or engage with staff, that G never does her homework and that she did not have PE kit. She always wears tights. Her absences since September 2010 were 19 days for illness, ten days unauthorised, and she had been late twelve times.
59. On the 28^th June 2011, JK was recorded as saying to her GP that she did not know why the nurse wanted to see her. On the 29^th June 2011, G appeared in a school concert. JK told the school she must wear a costume that covers her legs. On the 30^th June 2011 at a GP appointment G refused to get undressed and kept her tights on and her arms fully covered.
60. On the 6^th July 2011 Y school noted again that G had a mark under her left eye, including a small cut. G said that she had fallen off her bike in the back garden. On the 11^th July 2011 a speech therapist reported to the school that G had attended her initial assessment wearing a long skirt and tights although it was a warm day. She had a mark under her left eye said to have been done falling off her bike. That may be the same mark that I have referred to which was noted on the 6^th July.
61. At that point the school nurse did make a referral to Social Services for an assessment, but the records of the telephone conversations between the school and Social Services make it clear that Social Services did not consider that the referral was justified. On the 20^th July 2011 they closed their file again. This was another opportunity to protect G which was missed. By that time there were persistent reports of G having her legs hidden or hiding her legs and it seems to me likely that by then, at least some of the injury marks on her legs which were documented in 2013 were present.
62. On the 29^th September 2011, JK did not attend an appointment for a CAMHS assessment with G. I was unclear from her evidence whether this was because she never received an appointment which was an excuse she advanced at one point, or whether because, after her experiences in Yorkshire, she simply did not consider CAMHS to be a helpful intervention. This was also proffered at times as an explanation.
63. On the 18^th October 2011, there was a soiling incident at Y school. It is not in dispute that during her time at school in St. Anne's, G had difficulty with faecal staining. She went home in a dirty state. JK and LM complained. The school had a policy not to ask G or indeed any child directly if they were responsible for any noted odour because they did not wish to embarrass the children. Hence G's accident had not been detected. The consequent issues between the school and JK and LM were aired at a meeting between them and the head-teacher.
64. On the 2^nd December 2011 the school noted a mark above G's right eye. On the 7^th December 2011 the school noted a graze over G's left cheek. On the 14^th December 2011 the school noted a large scab graze on the left eyelid close to the graze from the 7^th December. On the 25^th January 2012 a Pupil Access support worker visited the home after G had been absent from school from the 9^th January 2012. At that point, JK told the support officer that she could not get G to Y school because of her (JK's) back problem. In fact, during her evidence, when it was put to her that she had not been taking G to school for this reason, she denied it despite the record of her having advanced that as an excuse. Indeed, JK's bad back was advanced at the appeal hearing as part of the case which enabled G to get a place at the T Church of England school, where she started on the 1^st April 2012. This was a much more convenient school to which she could go and come on her own, I think it was just around the corner from the family home.
65. The school were concerned about G and wanted to encourage her to join in extracurricular activities. Indeed she has been recently said to be a graceful child who enjoys dancing. It was therefore particularly appropriate that she was encouraged to join a line dancing club or class at T school. On the 15^th May 2012, the school were concerned because she declined to attend line dancing. G told the teacher that this was because JK had stopped her because she had spat on the windows. During her evidence, JK in her evidence, although on the following day she had given exactly that reason to the head-teacher, gave a bizarre account of why she had prevented G from going to line dancing: she related an incident when a teacher had handed G over to her, JK, without knowing her and therefore claimed that she stopped her going to line dancing because she was worried that the teacher might hand G over to a stranger. It is quite hard to follow this explanation, but I reject it in any event.
66. On the 17^th May 2012, G said she was not going swimming at school. She had a bruise on her leg and she said she had a bad leg. It was noted by the school that there was no note from JK or LM about swimming but G had not been sent to school with any swimming kit. The school made repeated attempts to contact JK or LM, but were unsuccessful. At the same time there were other concerns about G. The school had a facility whereby children could buy toast for 20p at break time. G had previously had toast which the kitchen had given her without her paying. She had joined the toast queue on the 17^th May but had given her 20 pence to a child who had previously lent her toast money. It seems that she was not consistently given the money for toast, even though she liked to have it. There were also persistent concerns about whether she was being given enough to eat. There were vehement denials of that by JK and LM. There was also thought to be a real possibility that she was eating some of her lunch at break time.
67. Thanks to the concerns that were brewing in May 2012, on the 17^th May the head-teacher actually went to JK's and LM's home. That visit was when the window-spitting (which prompted the withdrawal of line dancing) was confirmed by JK. JK and LM went back to school with the head teacher to look at the bruise which had been put forward by G as the reason for not going swimming, and G was apparently encouraged, in their presence, to relate what had happened to her leg but no account was volunteered. On the following day, JK suggested to the school that G had "Fallen on a clip". During the case before me, that account of self-inflicted injury using a hair clip was developed and to my mind, embellished.
68. G's head teacher was very concerned about her struggles with identity and self-esteem, and he asked whether he might refer her to RC, the counsellor, and that was agreed. At that point, the school considered making another Social Services referral, but decided against it because the carers genuinely did not seem to know about the bruise and had co-operated with the investigation. Again, this was another opportunity to protect G which was missed; I wonder whether it would have been missed had T school been aware of the occasions when Y school had considered referring her to social services.
69. On the 24^th October 2012, G went to school with a bruise, a cut and swelling on her right eye. Unusually on that day, she was taken to school by JK who had gone into school with her to explain that the cause of the injury was a drawer falling on G in the night when G was sleeping on the floor which she was said to prefer to the bed. When G was asked, she said she had not told either JK or LM at the time about the falling drawer.
70. On the 28^th February 2013, G was caught having taken a snack from another child's bag. She became very distressed during the conversation with the teacher about that. She said no one likes her and that her Mum - she was referring to JK - wants her to live with someone else because she lies. It was noted that she had been seen taking chips off the hall floor at lunchtime and hovering around the salad bar to eat as much as possible. It was at that point the school noted that sometimes her lunch box was not well stocked and they were not sure whether she was eating items at break.
71. On the 12^th March 2013 during a counselling session with RC, G made very serious allegations against JK. It seems appropriate at this stage that I relate what G herself has had to say about the injuries she was subsequently found to have suffered. I take this material from the statement of RC who is a very experienced counsellor to whom disclosures were made. I also heard her oral evidence. In addition, I have watched a DVD of the Achieving Best Evidence interview that G undertook on the 17^th April 2013.
72. I bear in mind, when reviewing G's accounts, the psychological report of Joyce Scaife, which has been prepared for these proceedings. From that it seems obvious that G is a child who has been deeply traumatised by her experiences and she deals with this by disassociation. This means, by distancing herself emotionally from the events that she has related. She has been left with severe problems in forming attachments and has a very poor sense of self-identity. It may be that she will be left with these problems for the long term, if not permanently. It seems to me, therefore, only to be expected that not everything she says about her experiences comes in the form of a coherent narrative. There are, however, consistent themes to what she has said about her experiences.
73. During the session on the 12^th March 2013 G said these things, which I consider to be relevant and significant:-

•    "Mum hit me on the head with a mop and made it bleed". This, incidentally, has been repeated on several other occasions.

•    "I can't touch anything. When I touched the phone, my Mum kicked me in the back. When I do something wrong, my Mum shouts at me and the dogs bark and bite me. It bit me on the arm". That allegation, too, has been repeated on several occasions.

•    "I get kicked out of the house and I have to stay outside when it's really cold". Again, a theme repeated on several occasions.

•    "My Mum said 'Next time I hit you, if I hit you with a hammer, you'll be dead'".

•    "I have accidents in my pants when I'm scared"

•    "I do not feel safe at home. Nobody wants me there and I'm scared. I don't know where I will live. It's got worse since the dog died. I'm blamed for the dog dying, but I don't know why". She suggested in that interview that the deceased dog had been in a box in the cellar. Just by way of footnote, so far as the dog is concerned, it would seem that one of the three Rottweilers had died shortly before this interview.

Both JK and LM ridiculed the concept of the dog being in a box in the cellar of the home, claiming that it had been buried in the garden. However, it does seem to me there is a possibility that what G said was right, that the dog had been in a box in the cellar, perhaps either before it was buried in the garden or perhaps because there was a plan, revealed by JK in her Police interview very clearly, to unbury the dog from the Lancashire garden and move it to the Yorkshire house when they were planning to move. That is something that JK revealed in her Police interview in April 2013

74. During G's Achieving Best Evidence interview on the 17^th April, she repeated the allegations that J had hit her and set the dogs on her. That the dogs had attacked her, that the dogs frightened her. That J shouts, and the dogs come. She said she would get injuries and bleed. She said that she would be put outside when it was cold and until it was dark. She said that she was made to stand on the landing outside her room and not allowed to sleep, because she had been naughty or had an accident. When she was asked to clarify, she made it plain that she meant a soiling accident. She also said that JK did not give her anything to eat.
75. All of the allegations that she made were against JK, and she also said that these things happened when LM and JK's son N were each out. She was asked about the marks on her legs in the ABE interview and said that it had happened in the bath when she was little, when she had turned the hot tap on. She said, as I have already related that a goose had caused the mark to her face. She said this:- "When I was little, I used to live with my real Mum. My real Mum didn't like me when I was little. She didn't used to do anything, and she used to strangle me with her phone cord". When asked who told her that, she said it was J. She said this. "She ...", she is referring to her birth mother, "... was throwing me around and then she put me in the bin. Then J felt sorry for me. She took me out and she said 'I will keep her'".
76. JK confirmed in her evidence that she had indeed told G that her mother had put her in the bin and insisted, although she had never said it before, that she had observed this herself. She seemed to think that the information needed to be imparted to G on the principle of needing to be honest with the child. She said that she had told G this when G was 10½ years of age. I note that G was not 10½ years of age until the April of 2013.
77. I am very concerned at the coincidence between that imparting of information and the beginning of G making disclosures. It also seems that JK did not have a similar approach so far as honesty was concerned, to the issue of whether G's mother, ABC, was alive or dead. I have not yet related that it came to be thought in 2010 by Lancashire social services during the first referral that G's birth mother was dead. It is said by JK and LM that this information was communicated to them by the social worker during the course of the core assessment that year. JK and LM say that G became aware of it but were not able to say how or when she became aware. However it was that she did, on their own accounts there was never any conversation with G about her birth mother's apparent death. Furthermore, when they became aware that birth mother was in fact not dead but alive, there was never any conversation with G to tell her this. I rely in relating this solely upon the evidence of JK and LM despite their unreliability as witnesses. The core assessment record does reveal a belief on the part of the social worker that Ms. B was dead. I cannot make findings on the balance of probabilities as to whether what they say about how that came about is accurate, given what I have to say overall about their accuracy. It is clear though that however G's belief that her mother was dead came about, even on their own accounts, the issue was grossly and insensitively mishandled by JK and LM.
78. My impression of G from the DVD is that she is a very engaging and attractive child. The only time she demonstrated real and extensive distress about anything was in talking about her pet cat Poppy, whom she had been forced to leave behind in JK and LM's home when she was accommodated. It was extremely poignant, palpable, extreme distress that she demonstrated about this, which causes me considerable concern. She did relate horrific experiences with an incongruent emotion. My conclusion about this after considering all the evidence is that it supports a view both that she had serious issues with self-esteem and also that her experiences in the household have been too horrific for her to allow herself to recall them vividly. I do accept the evidence of RC that G has now begun to do recall events vividly. RC, a very experienced children's counsellor, was palpably distressed herself when relating one session when this occurred during the summer of 2014.
79. Not all of what G has to say is coherent and this is not surprising given the years over which these events happened and the nature of the experiences she recalls.
    Despite this, many of the themes of her allegations have been consistently repeated. RC described her as one of the most seriously traumatised children she had ever worked with and she has undertaken hundreds of hours of work with hundreds of children over an eight-year period. Of course, the determination of whether a witness is telling the truth or not is a task for me and not for RC. I note, however, her evidence, that she has never doubted G's veracity.
80. I think it likely that G is not yet able to tell the whole truth about some matters, either because she would find them too distressing or because she has been subject to an embargo about talking about matters which she does not yet feel has been lifted. In particular, I do not consider that she has yet explained what occurred to cause the scalding scars on her legs and buttocks. I am very concerned about what was said and done to G in the 36 hours between her departure from T school on the 12^th March 2013 after JK had been told that she had made disclosures and was not coming home and her medical examination. I do not consider it at all likely, as asserted by JK, that nothing was said. I think it likely that she was both quizzed and threatened. I note that G said, during her ABE interview on the 17^th April 2013, "After school she was asking questions, and she said that I'm not allowed to see the cat any more". This is in the context of the extreme distress about the cat that I have already related and I hope explains my concern about that extreme distress. There was plainly an unusual and marked worry by G about the cat which is likely in my view to have been caused by what was said to her by JK or LM.
81. During the ABE interview, G referred, as I have already described, to her mother throwing her in the bin when she was baby. I think it likely that this very distressing story was told her during that 36 hours. My reason for concluding this is in part because JK herself said that they told her this because when she was 10½ which was her age at the point of the protective intervention. I also consider that there was a real possibility that she was threatened by JK and LM not to say anything and that the threat is linked to her anxiety about the cat.
82. I add to my reasons for finding that those hours were used to attempt to get at this child the rather menacing response given repeatedly during the evidence both of JK and LM that G herself should be asked to explain the marks and injuries that they were declining to do. I consider that this repeated menacing response was made because they have full confidence that she will not. I consider that they have such confidence that she will not reveal what happened to her legs because of whatever happened or was said to her during the 36 hours to which I have referred.
83. Later in the hearing, after both JK and LM had given evidence, I was referred to the Police note of an attendance at the family home on the 13^th March which is in the bundle at G27. It is plain from that note that the officer who attended at their home that evening was very concerned about their manner and demeanour to and about G. This note is another reason for my finding that JK and/or LM tried, during that 36 hour period, to prevent G from speaking further. Indeed, when G was asked by the Police Officer what had happened, she accused a teacher at school of having hit her with a school ruler. This patently untrue allegation constitutes yet more evidence, it seems to me, that she had been, to use the vernacular, got at by that point.
84. I therefore asked Mr. Hey to recall his client on the topic of what had happened during those hours. I was treated, by her, to further truculent vagueness and a denial of anything untoward that was of no assistance to me. The video link in fact cut off during that exchange. However, I do not consider, and it has not been argued, that that cutting off of the link has prejudiced JK's and LM's case.
85. I turn back briefly to the chronology that I have compiled in order to review what has or has not happened to this child. As I have already related, G was examined on the 14^th March 2013 by Dr. Rowlands. At that point she had been accommodated by the local authority. It is of particular significance, as confirmed by the social worker in her evidence to me, that G, since she has been accommodated in foster care, has encountered no further issues with soiling incidents. It seems to me that it is a proper inference for me to draw a causal link between the ill-treatment that it seems obvious that she suffered and those soiling incidents.
86. It is appropriate at this stage that I relate the medical evidence. I make no apology for taking advantage of the précis of the medical evidence prepared by counsel for the local authority. I derive it from two sources:-

The threshold criteria document:-

•    Dr. Rowlands examined G on the 14^th March 2013 and observed:

a) A scar about 1.5 centimetres long and just under .5 centimetres wide, just to the right side of the mouth;

b) Several scar injuries on her back, including a curved lesion 4 centimetres in length towards her left shoulder. A linear lesion over her lower right scapula, about 2 centimetres in length. A linear pigmented scar 2 centimetres in length to the left of the spine;

c) A small sub-lesion to the right of the spine;

d) A 5-centimetre curved scar over her right breast, about 5 centimetres in length;

e) Some small raised lesions over the left lower ribcage which looked like old scarring;

f) Extensive scarring around the right knee, running right down the leg on to the top of her feet;

g) Long linear scars with vitiligo on the left lower leg. He referred her to burns specialist, Ms. Sian Falder, who examined her on the 21^st March 2013 and found:

h) Scarring to the right side of her cheek;

i) Marks to her chest and left arm and back;

j) Scarring to her lower buttocks;

k) Scarring to her upper posterior thighs;

l) Scarring to her posterior and anterior lower legs, including the right knee and both feet, both the dorsum and the soles.

Of course, there is some duplication in the descriptions of the signs and symptoms of injury described there, by reason of the fact it has been noted by two doctors on different occasions.

•    She, this is Ms. Falder, concluded that: "The extensive nature of this scarring is certainly suggestive of scald injury, and the scarring that G has to her legs is consistent with the type of scarring commonly seen following scald injuries". However, she cautioned that the scarring to the right knee seemed a little more recent and that the marks to the soles of G's feet would not sit with a scald injury. Their linear nature could possibly have been caused by sharp objects being drawn against the sole. She described the injuries to the outer aspect of the right upper thigh, a semicircle of punctuate raised scars which resembles a bite mark.

•    Ms. Falder identified the scars as being mature: they had not been caused in the last few months. Had they been caused whilst in her mother's care, i.e. from birth to nine months of age, then they would have been clearly visible to JK and LM upon them assuming G's care, and a clear explanation of their causation would be expected. Of course, that is not in issue in these proceedings.

•    Ms. Falder opined: "Whenever these injuries to her buttocks and legs occurred, they would have been extensive and the surface epithelium, top layer of skin, must have been damaged in order for this scarring to have resulted. I would therefore normally expect a carer to seek medical attention for such extensive wounds. In my opinion, I do not feel that these injuries are consistent with a diagnosis of eczema". She concluded: "I feel that the leg and buttock scars have a distribution and appearance that fit with scald injury and are not likely to be the result of eczema or dermatitis. These scars show that significant injuries have occurred and there does not seem to be any history of medical care being sought. This suggests to me that she may not have been cared for adequately, and in addition, the large number of other unexplained injuries makes me suspicious that some or all of these injuries could have been deliberately inflicted".

•    Later, clinically, the opinion of a consultant paediatric dermatologist, Dr. Tim Clayton, was sought, to confirm whether eczema or vitiligo could explain G's presentation. His opinion was that they could not and are likely to be post-inflammatory change as a result of a previous burn injury.

The Written Submissions of the local authority within these proceedings.

•    It is correctly submitted by Ms. Gregg that the written medical evidence was not, as I have already set out, challenged in writing or by way of cross-examination of any of the treating physicians. The local authority put questions to the experts during the course of the proceedings, and Ms. Gregg sets out the replies of Ms. Falder. Ms. Falder considered and discounted the various explanations identified within the evidence of JK and LM for each of the injuries whenever an explanation was suggested. Ms. Gregg has helpfully précised those explanations and responses in her submissions as follows:-

•    "The explanations offered by JK and LM for each of the injuries identified are in effect that G must have caused the scarring herself, whether in the course of an accident or via episodes of self-harm, or alternatively, that G's legs were scarred due to her sitting for extended periods of time in her own excrement, or due to her scratching at eczema on her legs. Additional suggested causations include other schoolchildren poking her in the back; the cat scratching her whilst in bed".

•    The response of Ms. Falder to those suggestions was to rejected them. She said: "The soles of the feet are unusual areas to be so scarred and suggests significant trauma. The scarring that G has to her legs is consistent with the type of scarring commonly seen following scald injuries. Marks to the soles of her feet are linear in nature. It is possible they have been sustained by sharp objects being drawn against the sole.

87. The medical evidence is plain and unequivocal and rejects those few explanations that were offered by JK and LM.
88. JK was interviewed by the Blackpool Police. I find that she was accurate in her recollection of the date of this interview which must have been as she said on the 25^th April 2013. She had recorded it and she was adamant that was the date and this makes more sense than the date that is on the front sheet of the Police documents in the bundle. The birth Mother was traced in May 2013. LM for some reason was not interviewed by the Police until January 2014. That may well be because G made no direct allegations against him.
89. I have referred during the judgment to the advocates in this case. Each of them has taken the trouble to prepare written submissions of their client's case. I thank all of them for their hard work and their contributions in this case which has been unusual and distressing. I have been helped by each of them.
90. my Findings

In general where there is a conflict between either JK and LM and any of the other evidence I prefer the facts that are asserted in that evidence. This includes the written evidence. Hence, I have gone through the evidence chronologically, having given first my impressions of their veracity and credibility.

91. It seems to me, with the possible exception of the scar to G's left cheek, which may be as a result of a goose bite because there are consistencies of account between G, the GP notes and JK about that injury, that all the other scarring on G's body has been caused by trauma and trauma inflicted either by JK or LM. I find accordingly. In coming to that finding, I rely upon the medical evidence, the timing of the appearance of such scars during the years when they had care, their absence of explanation for any serious injuries and my impressions of them and their attitude.
92. So far as the very serious thermal injuries to this child's legs and buttocks, it seems to me that they are likely to have been caused by her kneeling down, thighs on buttocks, or being made to kneel down in that position in very hot water or liquid. I reject the explanation that she was suffering from eczema. It would not explain those marks in any event, as I have already related. Quite apart from that, there is no evidence that G ever suffered from eczema. There was no treatment sought in the GP records. JK and LM relate only one occasion when they sought such treatment from a walk-in clinic at a village hall, an occasion which was not recorded.
93. Those thermal injuries, it seems to me, were either deliberately inflicted by G being made to kneel in very hot liquid, or they were accidental when somebody had forced her to clean herself in very hot liquid. If they were accidental, they constitute gross negligence, both in allowing the injuries to occur in the first place, but more particularly, in not seeking treatment for those injuries. I note the repeated references in the school records of G hiding her legs. It seems to me that this behaviour is likely to be coincident with the appearance of those injuries.
94. On balance, therefore, having looked at those injuries, it seems to me more likely than not that they were deliberately caused by her being forced to kneel down. Nearly all of the other findings which I make in this case I am satisfied can be made to a standard well beyond the balance of probabilities. I am satisfied to the criminal standard of what has gone on. However, so far as those thermal injuries are concerned there is a lacuna as to what exactly happened. There is an absence of explanation for them and was no treatment sought at the time. The child was hiding her legs at school with the connivance of JK. I refer particularly to JK's insistence upon G not being examined by the school nurse without JK being present, the refusal to remove clothes when she is present and JK's insistence on G's legs being covered for the school production.
95. This child has not yet said what happened to her legs. However, by her account there was a very cruel approach in this household to her soiling problem. On her account, when she demonstrated that soiling problem, she was either shut outside or made to sleep on the landing. I also relate that account to the evidence from the X Unit, from PC, which confirms what the child had said.
96. On balance, as I have said, and it is very hard to contemplate, I do consider that those scalding injuries were deliberately inflicted. They were probably linked with somebody's disgust and vituperation over the soiling accidents and were likely to be linked with an abusive method of cleaning her up or forcing her to clean herself up.
97. So far as other injuries noted at school to G's face and around her eyes, I consider and find that those also are likely also to have been inflicted. Apart from the drawer explanation, which I reject, some of the injuries were apparent after longish absences from school which I think likely to have been attempts to seek to diminish the gravity of the appearances of original injuries.
98. So far as the dog bites are concerned that G alleges, I do think it likely that some of her injuries have been caused by dog bites. I do not think it likely that the three Rottweilers were deliberately set upon her to attack her, but I do think it likely that she was frightened of the dogs, that in their presence she was treated, by JK particularly, to being shouted at and to contemptuous treatment that might well cause a dog from time to time to nip her and bite her because that is what the dogs would perceive JK or LM to be doing to her. The fact is that if dogs of this size and type were actually set upon somebody to attack, the injuries that would be seen would be far worse than are seen. I do consider it likely that the dogs have from time to time bitten her. Certainly she was frightened of them. That fear was observed by others and both carers should have been aware of it and monitored the situation more carefully.
99. The pool of possible perpetrators is plainly limited simply to JK and LM. I have concluded firmly that the likely perpetrator is JK. The local authority have suggested that this is an uncertain perpetrator case, but I have concluded on balance that it is not. G has been wholly consistent in saying that the perpetrator of injuries against her was JK. Furthermore in 2013 LM was working long hours outside the home. Whilst both he and JK sought to obfuscate that as an issue during their oral evidence it seemed to me that they were simply trying to make a trail of deduction go cold with what they said. LM was working up and down the country as a lorry driver in 2013; I do not know how far the distances were that he was working or whether or not he got home every night but even if he did it is clear that he was more often than not absent when there was direct interaction with this child.
100. Quite apart from that, I had no impression from him that he was in any way a hands on carer for this little girl. Whilst it may be that he was responsible for cooking in the household, all the other jobs seemed to be done by JK. However, it seems to me that whether he inflicted these injuries or not, he is responsible for a gross failure to protect this child from JK. He could and should have done so. If the women next door were able to see how she was being treated from a first floor window, then he certainly should have been able to see how she was being treated from within the household.
101. Both of these people, JK and LM, are responsible for emotional neglect and abuse. They did not allow this child to have or promote her to have a positive self-image. They did not deal with her soiling problem and no doubt related to that unsympathetically. They each treated her with cold contempt which also emerged during the course of their evidence. They dealt with her racial identity insensitively - or, frankly, they did not deal with her racial identity at all. Their approach to her was desultory as I have described.
102. I also consider that they were jointly responsible for hiding the child from the attention of professionals, particularly on the last day before she came into the care of the local authority. I have already made my findings as to what I consider was happening on that occasion.
103. It therefore follows that I do consider that the threshold criteria are made out, as alleged by the local authority in their document, and in accordance with this judgment.