S (Fact-Finding)

This case has now been running for over 15 months since the 8 th April 2019 when the Intervenors, understandably, took safe-guarding measures in respect of Child S, then 13 months old. The hearing itself has lasted over two months, with breaks. I have heard and read a great deal of evidence and also written and oral submissions on behalf of the parties and intervenors. The whole process has, for a variety of reasons, taken far longer than is desirable. In the circumstances, I do not wish to keep the parties in suspense a moment longer than is necessary.

Putting it in a slightly different way, the positive evidence about this family is so strong that it would have taken very clear medical evidence to persuade me that these parents (or at least one of them, with a degree of collusion from the other) had serially abused their child. That is the way the local authority�s case is now put. I find that the medical evidence is nowhere near clear enough for that, for reasons which I will elaborate on later.

Child P�s view of her family appears to be echoed in the parenting assessment of Ms X, in particular paragraphs 61 (at G44), 63 and 64 (at G45).

During the mother�s evidence, (on Zoom), the mother took the court on a guided tour of the family home. It was clearly a very child-orientated home, even though the children have not been living there for the last 15 months. I wish I saw more images like that during the course of my Care work. Unsurprisingly, children from such homes are rarely the subject of Care proceedings.

The applicant local authority in this case, the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, is represented by Miss Taryn Lee QC and Miss Charlotte Keighley. The Principal Social Worker is Ms X.