A, Re Child

1. The matter before the Court concerns A who is currently 2 years and 9 months old so rising 3. Her father is age 46 and her mother is 37 years old. I will refer to A’s parents as the father and mother for the convenience of all reading this judgment. The father is a British national and the mother is a national of country Z.

2. The parties lived together from June 2020. The duration of the relationship was around July 2019 to September 2022 when they separated.

3. On the 27th September 2022 the mother says she attempted to kill herself but was stopped by a passerby from jumping off a bridge. Unsurprisingly this started a cascade of enquiries from Children’s Services, Parental Mental Health Team and her friends and the father were extremely concerned.

4. After their separation, they shared care of A. That was suspended from September to December 2023 due to the father taking cocaine. Over the course of the proceedings, the time the father spends with A has been reinstated.

5. A has a nanny, who has looked after A since she was 5 months old. The history of the proceedings.

6. The Mother made an application for A to live with her on the 17 th May 2023. She also applied for permission to take A to country Z, permanently. In her application the mother said that she suffered emotional, psychological, sexual and financial abuse. She said that A had suffered emotional abuse from the father.

7. In her C1A, she set out a number of allegations. These included coercive and controlling behaviour such as the father controlling her income, compromising her privacy by connecting his phone to her Gmail account, control over her support network, including who she spent time with. She alleged psychological abuse such as the father not using a condom during sex, as well as having an overlap of a sexual relationship with another girlfriend during the time the mother thought they were a monogamous committed couple. The mother said that the father telephoned the maternal assessment unit after A’s birth in order to check whether he could have sex with her shortly after her caesarean. She alleged he pressed her for sexual intercourse and she alleged he penetrated her when she was asleep, throughout the relationship. Penetration of a person while they are asleep would of course be rape.

8. Mother accused the father of psychological and emotional abuse by mocking her and making misogynist comments along the lines that she looked disgusting in the first few months after the birth as well as other ways of taunting her. The Mother accused the father of being a pathological liar.

9. The Father probably made a malicious report, she says, to Children Services about an accidental injury that occurred to A but which the mother had a full explanation for. The mother says she had given her explanation to the father about the injury at the first opportunity.

10. These were all examples of abusive behaviour she says she was subjected to.

11. About a month later the father filed an acknowledgement to mother’s application. He denied the allegations, either in part, or in whole. He gave alternative responses that showed the mother’s behaviour in a very different light and in which his own behaviour would be seen to be blameless. In his document he accepted that there was an overlap with another woman at the start of his relationship with the mother.

12. By July 2023 the father had filed a C2 application and a C1A. He said he had been exposed to emotional and psychology abuse and so had A. The C2 requested that A live with him and that the court appoint a psychologist as a Single Joint Expert (SJE) to assess the mother’s psychological functioning. The father also applied for an independent social worker ( ISW) to be appointed to carry out a section 7 report.

13. His C1A detailed volatile and erratic behaviour on the part of the mother which A would have found confusing and frightening. He said the mother had tried to kill herself in the past, that she had screaming “night terrors”, and that she behaved in odd and disturbing ways.

14. I note that whilst this exchange of applications and the commencement of the court process was in hand, on the 25 th May 2023, the mother contacted the police alleging stalking and coercive controlling behaviour by the father as well as rape by the father. She specified that she found spyware on her laptop, and she told the police that the father took cocaine.

15. It took until the 8 th August 2023 for the matter to first come before a judge. By that point the mother had made an application for an independent social worker as well as asking for psychiatric (not psychological) assessment of her own mental health. Her Honour Judge Roberts made an order that A should spend time between the mother and the father as she already did by agreement between them and granted the mother permission to move A to country Z for a holiday of 18 days.

16. I note that on the 5 th September 2023, mother’s medical records indicate that she had a further incident of suicidal ideation

17. Four statements by each party have been filed. Expert reports were ordered and the father did a number of hair strand tests for cocaine.

18. The final hearing has been a composite hearing which includes both the determination of factual matters as well as a determination of A’s welfare interests.

19. Mother asked the court for permission to withdraw her leave to remove to country Z application in April 2024 and that permission was granted.

20. The psychiatrist, Dr Cleo Van Velsen, reported in November of 2023 but her view was that pending facts being found, there was a possibility that the mother may be showing borderline or emotionally unstable personality traits with emotional dysregulation. These traits were maybe problematic for her functioning. It would be helpful, Dr Van Velsen felt, to have the input of a psychologist. On the 7 th December 2023 DDJ Hughan permitted the joint instruction on the application of the father , for Dr Gerald Drennan to produce a psychology assessment report on the mother’s mental health functioning. Dr Drennan reported on the 30 th January 2024 and his assessment similarly suggested that the mother presented with a preponderance of histrionic personality features which features of borderline and narcissistic personality traits. Again, there is a reservation in this report that this was subject to the findings of the court. Various addendum reports were sent into the court. A 4 day final fact find hearing listed before His Honour Judge Cox was adjourned on the 5 th February 2024. The independent social worker reported on the 1 st April 2024 followed by a further addendum from Dr Drennan, there was a directions hearing on the 24 th April 2024 which fixed the 5 day final hearing for the 3 rd June 2024. The Final Hearing.

21. The final hearing listed on the 3 rd June 2024 fell to me to deal with. It should have been in front of HHJ Cox but for reasons unknown, it was not so listed. This case is complex, multi layered and difficult to unpick. During this final hearing I have been greatly assisted by the preparation of an excellent bundle by the father’s solicitors as well as the father’s leading counsel who has prepared a detailed chronology and position statement for this hearing as well as ensuring that a consolidated schedules of allegations were before the court.

22. The mother who had the benefit of leading and junior counsel at various points in the litigation has acted for herself throughout this five day hearing. I note in passing that as well as doing this five day hearing the parties and the court have also had their time nibbled away by no fewer than five hours (in respect of the formal listing time) of short hearings on other cases. Additionally there has been the intervention of various technical staff who needed to deal with either window cleaning or fixing the court recording equipment machine. I am grateful to the parties for their patience in putting up with the manifestly less than satisfactory efficiency that these interruptions have produced. It has had a knock on effect on judgment writing time, although I was able to give a short form decision to the parties on the last day of the hearing. The positions of the parties at final hearing

23. I was asked to find that the father engaged in sexual relations with multiple partners, breaching the mother’s trust and I have also been asked to find that sexual assaults on the mother in 2007 and 2016 (by other men, nothing to do with the father) are a true account of things that happened to her. This list of findings is a shadow of her initial set of allegations that she sought.

24. The father is asking me to find that the mother has been volatile and erratic and angry. He particularly wants me to find that the mother carried out a series of deceptions in her professional life and on him. These deceptions were of such monumental impact that they render her behaviour overall as emotionally abusive and psychological abusive, of him and potentially, of A. The father asks me to find that the mother made a series of false allegations against him to authority figures and again the significance of this is that it is tantamount to perpetrating a relationship of controlling, psychological and emotional abuse upon the father and by extension to A.

25. By way of welfare conclusions that I am asked to make, the mother, I think, wants me to find that she is going to engage in treatment. This is because she accepts many of the factual issues, including her deceptions. I believe she is asking me to maintain the shared care arrangements that are currently in place with her having overnight contact.

26. From a welfare prospective the father initially asked me to accept the independent social worker’s recommendations for A. These are that for a period of three months A’s time with her mother should be supervised. There would be no overnight contact. Time spent between A and her mother would be much reduced. After that initial period had passed and the mother was in the correct kind of treatment for her condition (depending on the facts that are found by the court and the impact of findings on any diagnosis) the time would then be increased into alternate weekend contact for two full days supported by the nanny.

27. Any order would extend to A starting school. The end point would be every other weekend arrangement from Friday night until Monday morning as well some other agreed contact and holidays. The father invites me to make a Prohibited Steps Order so that the mother cannot take A abroad and invites me to limit her ability to use A’s passport.

28. As I set out below, his position shifted during the hearing. The Legal Test

29. Matters pertaining to the welfare of A are contained by the Children Act 1989 . The legal test is articulated in section 1 Welfare of the child. (1)When a court determines any question with respect to— (a)the upbringing of a child; or (b)the administration of a child’s property or the application of any income arising from it, the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration. (2)In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. (2A)A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare. …. (3)In the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4), a court shall have regard in particular to— (a)the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding); (b)his physical, emotional and educational needs; (c)the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; (d)his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; (e)any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering; (f)how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs; (g)the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question. (4)The circumstances are that— (a)the court is considering whether to make, vary or discharge a section 8 order, and the making, variation or discharge of the order is opposed by any party to the proceedings; or (b)the court is considering whether to make, vary or discharge a special guardianship order or an order under Part IV. (5)Where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under this Act with respect to a child, it shall not make the order or any of the orders unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all.

30. I have particularly in my mind the welfare checklist at Section 1(3) which I have set out above.

31. The applications of both parties engage the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 including its statutory definition of domestic abuse. Definition of “domestic abuse” (1)This section defines “domestic abuse” for the purposes of this Act . (2)Behaviour of a person (“A”) towards another person (“B”) is “domestic abuse” if— (a)A and B are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and (b)the behaviour is abusive. (3)Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of any of the following— (a)physical or sexual abuse; (b)violent or threatening behaviour; (c)controlling or coercive behaviour; (d)economic abuse (see subsection (4)); (e)psychological, emotional or other abuse; and it does not matter whether the behaviour consists of a single incident or a course of conduct. (4)“Economic abuse” means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on B’s ability to— (a)acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or (b)obtain goods or services. (5)For the purposes of this Act A’s behaviour may be behaviour “towards” B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B’s child). I am also mindful that per section 3 of the Act a reference to a victim of domestic abuse includes a reference to a child who sees or hears or experiences the effects of the abuse. The relevant practice directions

32. Practice Direction 12J is also engaged which invites the court to identify at the earliest opportunity whether domestic abuse is raised as an issue by the parties ( it is) and to consider the nature of those allegations and the extent to which it is likely that those allegations would be relevant in deciding how to make arrangements for A.

33. I can see from the history of the proceedings that the case has trembled on the brink of having a standalone fact-finding hearing. After such a hearing takes place, the court will have inevitably have listed a welfare hearing which would have been based on the factual matrix established in the fact find hearing.

34. A case management decision was taken to amalgamate the findings of fact and the welfare determination of A into this single 5-day hearing. It has seemed to me that this is exactly the kind of case that is not helped by separating out factual behavioural issues from welfare determination. It has been helpful for me to be able to think about A and speak and listen to her parents in a holistic manner and it means that the parents have been dedicating their thoughts towards what would be best for A and through the lens of her welfare interests even though, necessarily, they have had to defend their positions on the facts. The burden and standard of proof

35. The person making an allegation has the burden of proving it. The standard of proof is civil standard which is that of the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Lies

36. I remind myself of the principles and direction given by the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 . These principles were restated in Re C ( a Child) (Parental Order and Child Arrangements Order)(No.3) A v B and Another [2021] EWHC 3045 (FAM). Per Keehan J (my bold) The principle is that if the court concludes that a witness has lied about one matter it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure. In the criminal courts a lie can only be used to bolster evidence against a defendant if the factfinder is satisfied that the lie is deliberate, relates to a material issue and there is no innocent explanation for the lie. In the case of Re: H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136 at paragraphs 98 to 100 McFarlane LJ, as he then was, said: “98. The decision in R v Lucas has been the subject of a number of further decisions of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division over the years, however the core conditions set out by Lord Lane remain authoritative. The approach in R v Lucas is not confined, as it was on the facts of Lucas itself, to a statement made out of court and can apply to a "lie" made in the course of the court proceedings and the approach is not limited solely to evidence concerning accomplices. 99 In the Family Court in an appropriate case a judge will not infrequently directly refer to the authority of R v Lucas in giving a judicial self-direction as to the approach to be taken to an apparent lie. Where the "lie" has a prominent or central relevance to the case such a self-direction is plainly sensible and good practice.

100. One highly important aspect of the Lucas decision, and indeed the approach to lies generally in the criminal jurisdiction, needs to be borne fully in mind by family judges. It is this: in the criminal jurisdiction the "lie" is never taken, of itself, as direct proof of guilt. As is plain from the passage quoted from Lord Lane's judgment in Lucas, where the relevant conditions are satisfied the lie is "capable of amounting to a corroboration ". In recent times the point has been most clearly made in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in the case of R v Middleton [2001] Crim.L.R. 251. In my view there should be no distinction between the approach taken by the criminal court on the issue of lies to that adopted in the family court. Judges should therefore take care to ensure that they do not rely upon a conclusion that an individual has lied on a material issue as direct proof of guilt”. Vulnerability

37. I noted that there was an appointment for a QLR early in these proceedings (to cross examine the father on the mother’s behalf) but the court has not been able to find one. The vulnerability has run both ways, on the written evidence, the father is also psychologically vulnerable given his allegations.

38. I have been satisfied that the mother has been able to give her best evidence and the way in which her evidence has been tested was both sensitive and courteous by Mr Hale. She was able to put her questions to the father, with some assistance from the court, including making sure she had time to digest evidence and consider where and how she wanted to challenge it. The written evidence

39. Turning to the evidence that I have heard there have been two bundles provided, one of 771 pages long and a supplementary bundle of 1,123 pages long. The supplementary bundle contained the exhibits as well as numerous hair strand testing results, witness statements from persons not called, some employment documentation, some local authority disclosure, Claire’s Law disclosure and other documentation from the Police.

40. The father and the mother each filed four witness statements. There were four other witnesses called and they made short statements. I have had the benefit of safeguarding letters from CAFCASS, a psychiatric report from Dr Van Velsen plus two addendum reports from her. I have had a psychological report from Dr Drennan as well as two addendum reports from him. And I have had the independent social worker section 7 report from Ms Judith Jones. All the professional evidence appeared to be challenged. Therefore all three experts came to give evidence. They were very clearly necessary experts to resolve this case. The total number of witnesses who gave oral evidence was nine.

41. In her questioning of the experts, the mother’s position seemed to shift from challenge to their findings, to seeking understanding and meaning behind the experts reports. I do not think she disagrees with the analysis in those reports. I heard from the mother, the father and from Ms M and Mr C on behalf of the mother as well as Ms B and Ms C for the father. The issues

42. By the time this case arrived at his final hearing, the issues can be summarised as follows:

43. The father says that the mother’s mental health problems, specifically her pathological lying, are such that they consist of a risk to A’s psychological and emotional wellbeing. It meets the test of harm and abusive behaviour both to him and to A. He is extremely worried about how A’s own psychological functioning will be affected in the long run if she is exposed to that behaviour as a normality when she is growing up. Her behaviour is relevant behaviour for the purposes of PD 12J (sections 35, 36 and 37) – any order the court makes must consider all those factors before any child arrangements order is made for A. Mother’s parenting is a risk to A which must be managed.

44. The mother’s case is that the father is abusive in the sense that he is coercively controlling around money, mood and emotion to her and to A. Her case was that he cannot parent A properly and she should have A with her full time.

45. By the time we arrived at day five of this hearing the father’s case remained the same, but the mother’s case has shifted to an acceptance ( as she says) of the summary of her mental health problems by the experts. She says agrees that she needs therapeutic input to help her parenting and mental health.

46. It is therefore agreed that the likely shape of the order that I am going to make is that preferred by the father with the advice of the experts feeding into it.

47. However, it will not serve A well if I do not explain and give full judgment as to the decision I have made after the totality of the evidence was explored. The mother’s evidence

48. The mother’s previous field of work was in philanthropy. In the course of this case, I realised that the charity sector is wide ranging, from donation solicitation on a “ bucket shaking basis” right up to the higher echelons, where networking and profound relationship building lead to large donations from the wealthy and sometimes famous. The sector is unregulated.

49. In 2019 , the mother worked for a charity and she told her managers and colleagues that she had built a relationship with a generous and wealthy businessman called Mr O. Mr O, she said, had let the mother know that he was interested in some of the campaigns that the charity was going to run and he would be willing to donate £50,000.00 to the charity. The mother told her employer that the relationship was fruitful and that she was in correspondence with Mr Ofor the donation.

50. When she left the charity the payment was still pending and the mother did a handover including the relevant email address so that her former colleagues could continue liaise with Mr O and receive the money. Colleagues continued the correspondence to the potential donor, chasing emails were sent, responses were received which acknowledged the donation was to come and that he was disappointed at the hold ups to the donation. Over the course of seven months this correspondence continued. By chance one of the workers at the charity did not just send an email to Mr O but copied in a second email address which was also associated with his organisation. Within hours Mr O responded from an email address unknown to the charity team , asking for an urgent conversation. Mr O told the director that he had never made a pledge to the charity and that the initial email address that the charity had been using to communicate with him was not associated with him in any way.

51. A similar sequence of events was repeated at the mother’s next employment, at AB ( an organisation that connects entrepreneurs to charities ). It employed a similar pattern and was in regard to a donation of £60,000.00 that was to go to a national charity. Again, emails between the charity. and AB were exchanged. A false narrative around a donation was concocted and sustained through the actions of the mother.

52. A third similar incident occurred but closer to home. The mother admits to setting up an email account in the name of “Ms BC”. Ms BC purported to be a wealth manager who was in correspondence directly with the father with a view to setting up a charitable trust in the name of A’s late paternal grandfather. Alongside the email conversations with Ms BC, the mother told the father that the money was going to come from part of her very large family trust and it was a gift to him to honour the memory of his beloved father. The emails between the father and Ms BC continued for many months.

53. As was the case in the charity, Ms BC was also a deception upon the father. Ms BC probably exists, as she has a LinkedIn profile which was in the father’s evidence and which exactly mirrored her professional persona in the “fake emails” of the mother.

54. In a summary of these three deceptions, it is essential to grasp;- a. The mother was behind every email to the father/her colleagues, using a false email address; b. The correspondence went on for months or years; c. The correspondence was sometimes to and from herself ( in which she is pretending to be someone else) or to erstwhile colleagues ( because the deception continued after she moved on from post, and she had to answer colleague’s emails who have taken over the matter and who were none the wiser) d. The conversations are detailed, plausible and have the right “voice”.

55. The mother accepts and I so find that she did all these things. She gained no monetary advantage from them.

56. It was put to her that as well as these deceptions she has given information that she knew to be untrue to Southwark Borough Council, the police and those who have been engaged to support her such as Mr R (from Early Years Support) and a domestic abuse worker and an occupational therapist called Ms S. She told Mr R that a previous girlfriend had been raped by the father and that she was obtaining Clare’s Law disclosure to back this up. She did not accept that this was lie until she was cross examined on it by Mr Hale KC.

57. In the parenting assessment of the ISW Judith Jones contained comment about the inadequacy of the Local Authorities’ response to the mother’s allegations. The Local Authority neither reminded themselves that the allegations were still unproven, nor did they cross check the position of the father and therefore the likely validity of those allegations. In fact, they permitted themselves to be deflected away from any investigatory work which would have shed some light on what was being said by the father in response to the allegations.

58. Throughout the passage of evidence regarding the behaviour at Southwark Social Services, the mother was asked whether she understood that her behaviour could have had catastrophic consequences for the father. It did not lead to his arrest and prosecution for rape and other offences but it easily could have done. She eventually accepted that it could have been very serious for the father and that it was her omissions and manipulation of the facts that led to professionals being completely misled as to the material facts they were dealing with.

59. It is noteworthy to say that the mother was accessing (through these same professionals) a great deal of support and help from them. She was considered by them to be a victim of serious domestic abuse.

60. The mother ensured that Mr R and the team supporting her were dissuaded from asking the father directly about the allegations, as she said, to do so would put her in danger.

61. Whenever the questions tended to these very difficult passages of evidence it was very clear to me that she was unable to articulate any reason for these audacious untruths, and I noted a lack of commitment to owning her lies. A frequent response when the most difficult questions came would be “ I don’t know how to answer that ”. I noticed her body language was extremely shut down in the moment of giving this evidence. Her head was down, her gaze was avoidant and her voice became very quiet. She was evidently very uncomfortable.

62. The mother had two witnesses (Mr C and Ms M) who wished to support her and who had put in their statements what one might consider to be character references and observations of the excellence of her parenting, her kind manner and how they had witnessed her being pressured or coerced by the father.

63. Mr C gave evidence from abroad by CVP and came across as a very articulate man who wanted to do all he could to support his friend. He was adamant at the beginning of his cross examination that the mother was a woman who was honest and perhaps the worst that one could say of her is that she was so loving, kind and generous in spirit that this would sometimes be to her detriment. Any lies she told would be of the most insignificant nature and barely lies at all. He accepted he would be extremely shocked if he found that the mother would lie to the police or to a social worker. It was Mr C’s view that the father had narcissistic traits, wanted to be the centre of attention and was uncaring and dismissive. Mr C accepted that the evidence he was giving was through the lens of viewing the father as a “narcissist” and that he was a manipulative man who posed a risk to the mother.

64. Previously, in her evidence the mother told the court that she had told Mr C and her second witness Ms M about the Ms BC lie. She told the court in answer to specific questions that her friends knew;- a. she used a fake email address; b. they know it was to do with offering money; c. they knew it was also done at her employers, and; d. that these deceptions have been perpetrated for a number of years.

65. It seemed to me in listening to Mr C’s evidence that he had not been told such a straight story. He was clearly a man who had all his facts from the mother. He could tell the court that “Ms BC” was used as a “communication device”. It was a “boundary to protect the sharing of information” He told the court that the mother left the first charity of her own accord and that the limit to her “dishonesty” at the charity was due to incorrect data sharing around donor lists. He was asked by counsel to expand on why that might so very dishonest, and he surmised that it was because these were inaccurate pieces of information and so that was where the untruth was.

66. The use of Ms BC as a “boundary” was the initial story to the court in the mother’s first witness statement. She said, “ I subsequently used it to add in a different voice, hold a boundary that I felt difficult to hold for myself, and to pledge donations (primarily to the charities that I worked for and with whose work I believed in) that I had intended to make out of the trust once I could access it ” . She has repeated a similar explanation to her friends. Mr C is misconceived in his assessment of the mother’s honesty. He has been given a tenth of the story.

67. I find that the mother does to him is what she has done to all those close to her. She weaves her narrative gently and slowly and sympathetically, she minimises the facts, gives plausible reasons for behaving in the way that she has and draws the sting out of her behaviour by always being able to say that she has been truthful and admitted to something that she shouldn’t have done. Now everybody knows about it nobody can accuse her of trying to hide it. It is a very clever way of lying, putting the lie in plain sight and then not having to be blamed for it, because the value in the confession, combined with the reasonableness of her motivation , serves to elicit sympathy, instead of criticism, from her friends.

68. If Mr C had watched the evidence of two of the father’s witnesses in support of his case, Mr C’s opinion may well have undergone a painful volte face . I was very grateful for his evidence because he has in fact been extremely instrumental in demonstrating to the court how the lies told by the mother can completely subvert a clearly intelligent man’s critical faculties, principals and belief systems.

69. The mothers second witness Ms M was, I think it is fair to say, combative with counsel. She quickly became defensive and was on no account going to change her view of the mother. Ms M stated to the court that she knew the mother very well for over 10 years. The mother in her view was very honest, loyal, intelligent, giving and supportive. She also told me that the Ms BC issue was about boundaries and that she was a persona that was created but it helped the mother put boundaries in between business matters and those who she wanted to help.

70. She did not know the detail that the trust was being proposed in memory of the late paternal grandfather and she accepted that she didn’t know about that detail but she told me that she understood that the Ms BC device was used across a couple of instances, and that she knew that an incorrect email address had been used in the charitable work. I had the impression that she wanted to be truthful, but she was at no point prepared to step back from the emotional investment in her friend and consider dispassionately what her friend has told her with a more forensic eye. I find that if she too had heard some of the evidence of the father’s witnesses, this may have pierced the bubble of her emotional investment in her friend. The father’s evidence.

71. The father gave evidence in a very straightforward manner. He was clearly emotionally battered by his relationship with the mother and the knowledge that they cannot be together for A’s sake. He is clearly caring enough for the mother to have raised sincere concerns at the end of the hearing in February to her health. He does not strike me as somebody who is unkind or is uncaring about the mother.

72. He accepted and owned the challenges that he has faced with regards to his cocaine use. He has cooperated readily with hair strand testing orders, and he was very open and took ownership of his drug misuse. He has, much to his credit, invested in addiction therapy. This has borne fruit as he has not used cocaine since about August/September 2023. I find he is insightful about the company he keeps and the situation that led to him using cocaine. He told me that he would agree to any order that I might think to make about future drug testing.

73. He had the self-awareness to understand that if, as I think he must, be the primary carer for A, he will sometimes need to safeguard her from her mother. He acknowledges that this might be hard, and he told me that he was likely to continue with therapy with a slightly different focus around his own boundary issues.

74. Turning to his two witnesses, Ms Cis the Chief Executive of the national charity referred to above, her written evidence set out the events related above. She was very clear that the impact on the charity was fairly significant. It left her personally and professionally angry, frustrated and disappointed. It had eroded trust and led to new procedures being put in place after an internal review. The charity had to be more rigorous and more circumspect with their donors, which damages trust. It wasted resources for the charity, and she had no hesitation in characterising the behaviour of the mother as dishonest. The charity did not report the matter, perhaps to the police as they could have done but they felt that they did not have enough evidence and it would further waste their time and resources which as a small charity they could ill afford to lose. It was a significant amount of money that was lost to the charity and that had plans for the money.

75. Ms B who is a country director for the UK and Europe at the first charity that the mother worked for. She confirmed her written statement in which I have referred to the events above. It was also a sizable donation for the charity which had to be covered by other funds which had already been earmarked for other purposes. Again, she decided that they did not want to get involved in taking steps to complain to the police or characterise it as a fraud and start up a criminal investigation. She felt as they hadn’t actually lost any money it would again be a further waste of time and resource. She also had no difficulty in characterising the behaviour of the mother as a gross outrage and very dishonest.

76. I accept in full the evidence of both the father and his witnesses. It is telling that such busy professional executives were prepared to write statements and come to court. They have provided a detached summary of what really happened while the mother worked for them and I am very grateful for their assistance. The expert evidence

77. Turning to the expert evidence in this case. I will first deal with the evidence of Dr Chloe Van Velsen which was dated 2 nd November 2023. Dr Van Velsen is a psychiatrist. As mentioned, all the experts gave oral evidence.

78. In her observations and notes of documents she had before her on the two occasions that she met with the mother it is clear that she took the usual professional careful notice of the facts and listened carefully to the narrative given by the mother. Dr Van Velsen included in her examination a psychosexual history of the mother. There are several places in her report where she reminded herself that there were facts that had not been established. For example, page 28 of her report [paragraph 238] where she says there are “ confusing aspects to mother’s narrative, for example, it was hard to follow her explanation of adopting another persona to send emails .”

79. It is clear to me that she was fully aware of facts that were agreed between the parties and those that fell to be determined by the court and her opinion takes account of the different directions that her analysis may tend to, depending on the findings of the court. Notably at paragraph 244 she says “ all these, of course, are facts for the court to determine but in my opinion there is some evidence for further problematic personality traits namely a possible tendency to become very emotional and exaggerate… if it is find that there has been deception, for example about her identity, finances and history of herself and her family, then I could comment further on a psychiatric formulation .”

80. Unusually, Dr Van Velsen advised that a psychological assessment was necessary to achieve a full picture, both for the court and for any onward treating clinician.

81. Pertinently, she was unsure whether the work being done around domestic abuse was helpful due to its potential to reenforce the narrative that the mother was being abused, without that being established as a certainty .

82. The psychologist, Dr Gerrad Drennan, was instructed to carry out a full psychological assessment of the mother. His interview with the mother was in a meeting of six hours at her friend’s home as well as a shorter follow up appointment. He had hoped to speak to the mother’s therapist, but the therapist declined to meet with him. The relevant members of the family being the mother’s father and her brother respectively declined to meet with him or did not reply to his email invitation to meet with him.

83. His view was that it was likely that the mother’s personality functioning is within the cluster B disorder. He characterized cluster B as the dramatic, emotional or erratic personality types and noted that there are four defined cluster B disorders, namely borderline histrionic, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders. He thought the mother presented with a preponderance of histrionic personality features with additional features of borderline and narcissistic personality. He thought at the time of writing his report that they did not at that time meet the threshold for psychiatric impairment that constitutes a personality disorder. However, there would be a risk of this development should certain behaviours and relationship difficulties persist or if additional difficulties are established as fact. He too thought that his opinion could be reviewed in the light of the findings of fact of the court. He recommended weekly therapy on a long-term psychological basis with the disclosure of the reports to an experienced therapist.

84. It is clear from the evidence in his report that he found a number of inconsistencies in the narrative that he was presented with. He noted the history of low mood and impulsivity as well as suicidality evidenced by the Bridge incident. He felt that it was difficult to get to grips with facts asserted by mother and when talking to Dr Van Velsen, he agreed when she suggested that “ while we as clinicians wait the findings of the court, a reasonable hypothesis for the purposes of developing a clinical formulation, maybe some of what the mother says is not true .” Dr Drennan and Dr Van Velsen together set out a format for their worries around how mother may parent A as follows: a. Impulsivity; b. What it is like to parented by a mother who is not truthful; c. Adequate containment for A and mother’s lack of confidence in her own parenting; d. Mothers’ poor relationship with father and the risk of mother coopting A into an alliance against father; e. Mother’s two types of destructiveness. Self-destructiveness and destructiveness in relationships with others; f. Mothers’ vulnerability if she runs into difficulty through issues catching up with her and lastly; g. If mother was to be under more pressure than she could manage and drop out of contact.

85. They concurred with each other in that they thought it would not be appropriate for treatment to be provided by victim support type organisations.

86. They both noted that there was a high likelihood that the mother would be destabilised in treatment, but which I take to mean that the reality of addressing deep rooted personality problems requires painful deep exploration of the self which is almost undoubtedly going to bring up an emotional volcano which has been capped and recapped and buried as deep as possible for many years.

87. The second addendum psychiatric report produced by Dr Van Velsen concurred with Dr Drennan regarding the mother demonstrating borderline histrionic and possible narcissistic traits. Histrionic traits she felt were in her tenancy to exaggerate, have changeable emotions and be someone attention seeking. The narcissistic traits would be a tendency to tell narrative to bolster self-esteem. Dr Van Velsen also thought that a deferential diagnosis would include pseudologica fantastica or pathological lying. She was careful to note that this is not a currently recognised psychiatric diagnosis but has been described and discussed within the psychiatric literature. This can be described as “ the repeated utterance of untruths; the lies are often repeated over a period of years, with the lies eventually becoming a lifestyle; material reward or social advantage does not appear to be the primary motivating force but the lying is an end in itself; and inner dynamic rather than external reason drives the lies, but when an external reason is suspected, the lies are far in excess of the suspected external reason; the lies are often woven into complex narratives .”

88. Dr Drennan noted impulsivity around the mother’s emotional instability and life choices. His assessment was that the mother’s personality function was impacting on not just daily routines but stability of residence and significant relationships and this could be a risk for A.

89. The third expert was Judith Jones who is an extremely experienced Independent Social Worker. Her report was dated the 1 st April 2024. She also noted the oddities and inconsistencies and reactions to the challenge when talking to the mother.

90. Judith Jones analysed a number of risks to A, in brief they are;- e. A being negatively impacted by mother’s impulsivity and the chaos she creates -for example, her suicide attempt, her moving around so much, her lying which damaged her relationships both personal and professional. f. a negative narrative about the father, saying “ I have noted how she draws people in to a narrative, which is then defined and reworked by them ”. g. A as being liable to be pulled into an alliance against the father and his family. She noted “ The mother has clearly been skilled in separating off groups of friends or professionals so that they never encountered another perspective from the father. ” h. A risk that A will not be educated in that which is the social norm of being right and wrong, or truth and lies. As she put it “ a risk to the moral compass in A’s world ” and “ The mother admits to lying, and has also appeared to have difficulty taking responsibility: she has dismissed the consequences of her allegations about the father, saying “it was nothing to do with A” ; and with the BC impersonation: she said “no money changed hands” and suggested it was a “victimless crime.” A child needs, as part of their emotional development, modelling of a moral code, where responsibility is taken for behaviours and consequences understood .” i. A risk of false stories about A’s origin. j. A risk to A of emotional harm, of a serious nature, by being stressed and confused by witnessing some of her mother’s behaviour.

91. Her recommendations took into account the views of Dr van Velsen and Dr Drennan. She recommended on-going specialist therapeutic treatment as a foundation for any arrangement. It is clear from her report that this is not a “nice to have”, but a necessity. The mother should attend the Triple P Parenting course. The mother should remain registered with an NHS GP and she should consider sharing her diagnosis with two close friends. The father should also engage in ongoing therapy and also receive information to help him understand the diagnoses as well as what improvements he can realistically expect.

92. The balance of time spent with either parent should shift in favour of the father. Her view was that to start with this would no include overnight stays. That would not move on until three months had passed and there is full compliance with treatment.

93. There should be a lives with order in the father’s favour ( unless findings were made against him). Necessary professionals and the nanny should be given enough documentation to make sure there was protection from the mother watering down the narrative about what was required.

94. She stressed that -A’s best interests were met by having a loving relationship with her mother, but her report acknowledged that A’s childhood would be affected by the mental health/ personality . It appears to the court that the ISW’s view is that some level of stress is acceptable, so long as mother is making progress. All the experts thought that their reports should be made available to anyone treating the mother. Analysis.

95. The courts naturally deal with lies all the time. The mothers disordered behaviour includes a symptom of telling extraordinary lies. The court has her own admissions, but far more useful is the evidence of the father and his two witnesses, that reassure me that the truth is as the father says it is.

96. Neither she nor the experts are sure about why she does this. I was interested in Dr Drennan’s comments when he said, “ calling someone a liar is not what I would do. I would say someone who lies .” It is something she does, not who she is.

97. Prior to this final hearing there were admissions by the mother set out in her third statements at page 529 of the bundle. She sets out her further explanation of the Ms BC tale. She explains to the court that “ my use of a pseudonym in past communications was an attempt to maintain a boundary and handle a complex financial situation. While it was not done with malicious intent, I absolutely recognise that it was a profound mistake. I am deeply sorry for my disceptation and the repercussions it caused. Following this incident I have engaged in therapy sessions centred around establishing healthy boundaries, effective communication and understanding the underlying motivations for my actions. These sessions have been instrumental in helping me develop better coping mechanisms and decision-making skills. “

98. This characterisation of the Ms BC incident is part of the playbook which the mother has used on more than one occasion. A party who files one witness statement, never mind four, has ample opportunity to put their hands up to an untruth. The above passage is revealing in that she tells the court carefully curated facts, leaving out the nugget of truth (a suggested but painful alternative; I pretended to be a professional wealth manager to the father of my child and partner for three years ). She invites sympathy by denying “malicious intent” and gentrifies it by cladding the whole in the language of mistake, being sorry for the repercussions it caused, and offering penances that ( by implication) only a heart of stone could reject by stating she has engaged in therapy sessions, and candidly permitting a view into the normally confidential work she is doing to bolster her insightfulness. The court is to conclude that she sees the error of her ways and wishes to change.

99. I find it unlikely that she has any such insight or desire to change. I fear that her engagement with treatment is likely to be a window dressing and may well lull the father ( who accepts he will struggle to be tough when it is needed) into unwise arrangements.

100. I note that the father has asked that the court move from the arrangement suggested by the ISW, to one which allows for more time to be spent with the mother.

101. I find that the mother’s modus operandi is as follows: a. A lie is narrated. The narrative of the lie is detailed and complicated with numerous facts inserted into it. Some of those facts may be true. Most of them are not. b. The lie is plausible due to the mother’s social situation, or the time and place that she finds herself in. c. The lie is fed to others and the deception is maintained through covert methods. An example is to set up a persona including a full professional background and an email address. d. The lie resists challenge due to the control the mother has over who has each piece of the puzzle. An example of this is the lies she told to -Southwark Borough Council and then prevented by giving an account that she may effectively be in danger from the father, if her version of events were put to him. e. In a word, the mother is an expert in obfuscation and misdirection, always to her advantage. f. Eventually, although it can be a great deal of time before the lie is found out, the mother moves on and the lie is exposed. g. The mother will destroy the lie herself but under her own terms. This is exemplified by firstly the statement she gives the court at page 529 of the bundle and paragraphs 28 to 32. It has also been extremely instructive to observe the evidence of Mr C and Ms M. They parroted a similar version of the Ms BC explanation. They have no understanding that two charities doing important work have had resources, hope and trust sucked out of them. The mother has at times, characterised this lie as a victimless crime. That is not true. The victims are the people who she affected at the charities and her partner (the father). h. If she is found out or challenged then she uses minimisation and trivialisation to deflect the seriousness of the lie. I find that these have been extremely serious, and one might say audacious lies which are outside the norm of human lying. The mother maintains a façade which is both breathtaking and perilously near to con-artistry.

102. I found myself puzzling over why she does this. I observe that she has gained a great deal of social love and approval from her lies (before they are found out) . She has also created a cult like bubble of unbreakable loyalty using the method described above. The way she fixes her lies means that the complete co-option of Ms M and Mr C into her world view. Unless they could see every single piece of the puzzle, they would not be able to break out of it.

103. The mother’s schedule of allegations was, I find, a projection of many things that were actually being done by her to the father. I am extremely concerned about the way she weaponizes her lies to get what she wants and to experience the validation that she seems to crave. One of the risks that I do not think has been discussed by the professionals is that as A grows up, as is common inside coercive dynamics, the attention of a perpetrator shifts from the parent who cannot (by reason of the child’s age and thirst for independence) stand so firmly in the way of the behaviour of the power seeking parent, and therefore the attention and the behaviour shifts onto the child. I can easily imagine a situation of A being about 12 or 13 and beginning to challenge her mother on many levels after a childhood full of confusion and an altered sense of reality. There is a risk of damage to A’s self-esteem, and a combination of the power that her mother will have over her and the mother’s ability to lie, misdirect and obfuscate with a practised hand will mean that A will experience confusion and stress unless the court limits the influence that her mother has over her life.

104. The behaviour the mother exhibits is real, and it is dangerous to A because it is both psychologically and emotionally abusive. It has long been thought by family lawyers that psychological and emotional abuse, although set out in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 , are difficult to pin down as a standalone item to be found by a judge. It is hard to explain, more difficult to evidence and some might say sometimes rather difficult to get a tribunal to engage with. I find emotional and psychological abuse was perpetrated on the father. A is at risk of the same behaviours being perpetrated against her.

105. I especially foresee the risk to A of being turned or alienated emotionally from her father. The evidence of Mr C and Ms M provide instruction as to how difficult it can be to shift the reality of anyone who has been pulled into the mother’s belief system.

106. I am extremely concerned that the mother will find the changes she needs to make hard, possibly too hard. I was heartened by one of the experts telling me that they wouldn’t do this work if these problems were not fixable. It was, however, clear to me during the mother’s evidence that as mentioned above where the sore spot is touched, she shuts down. I accept that this process has been in the glare of the court and is a humiliating and difficult experience for her, in her own words she felt like she was being “flayed”. I hope for A’s sake she will undertake the correct therapy needed to readjust her behaviour.

107. I am persuaded that the father’s own engagement in therapy will equip him to handle the need to maintain his and A’s boundaries and the court encourages him to do so.

108. F shifted his position during the hearing and asked for a less restrictive child arrangements order than that proposed by the ISW. Of course, this means that I am being asked not to follow the advice of Ms Jones. F commendably wants to make an arrangement that is less restrictive, for A’s sake. I agree with him. His order will produce less of a change to the status quo for A, she will see more of her mother on F’s new proposals. A’s relationship with her mother is very deeply bonded. She has good attachment to her and she is at a very young age. There is a tricky balance between restricting the time mother and A spend together so that A is safe from harm, yet keeping their bond healthy, and to some degree, giving the mother hope and making sure my order is not built-to fail.

109. Any order I make will allow the father to lessen the contact if he has reason to believe that the mother is not compliant with treatment. That provides an ability to row back to a place of less exposure to harm, automatically, if necessary and for A’s benefit. I think the slightly less restrictive order proposed by the father is the place to start.

110. I know that the ISW, Ms Jones, is available to help the father monitor the situation, much akin to a family assistance order. I will make provision for that in my order. The mother will undoubtedly struggle to change, and her capacity for change has not yet been tested. As she said to me in her evidence, “ I have been in therapy for years.” Yet here we are. Any future treating therapist will not find the dysfunction is masked by the mother’s lack of veracity.

111. The findings that I make as follows on the mother’s schedule;- a. As to the first finding about the father engaging with sexual relations with multiple partners which breached her trust. I find that the father made full admissions about one overlapping relationship. This is not a court of relationship morals and what either of them have done in regard to previous partners is not determinative of A’s welfare. However, going forward I find the father is both honest and open about his own failings in a way that the mother is not. This again will feed into A’s understanding of do people mean what they say and can she rely on them. b. The mother alleges there were two historical sexual assaults while the mother was at university (2007) and in employment (2016) (not by the father) which she characterised as a serious rape and a sexual assault (but did not mention on a number of occasions when she was being asked about her psychosexual history). I am troubled that the mother told the court that she had evidence that she was about to obtain but by this hearing nothing of substance has been provided. Nevertheless, just because the mother lied about many other issues, does not mean she has lied about this. Rape is notoriously the cause of complicated trauma. Whether these rapes happened as she says they did I cannot be sure. However, I notice that here was some corroboration from two of her witnesses, who had direct knowledge of the events themselves and whose evidence was unchallenged by the father. I therefore suspect there was some truth in the mother’s personal history of these sexual assaults.

112. Turning the to the father’s schedule for findings. In short, I find all of his findings to be proven as he sets out. At 2(c) I add that where he says there is no direct impact to A, I find that these lies are directly impactful on A if the mother loses her employment or ends up with a criminal record. They have a great deal of potential to be much more harmful than they have been hitherto. I attach a schedule of the findings after this judgment.

113. The child arrangements order I shall make is;-

114. A shall live with her father

115. The father shall make the child available to spend time with the mother as follows: a. Each alternate weekend from Friday from nursery until Sunday night at 6pm. The contact shall be supported by the current nanny (or a replacement nanny) and/or a paid babysitter in the daytime according to their availability: and b. Each Wednesday afternoon from nursery until 6.30 (supported by the nanny); c. Such other times in the week as the parties may agree in advance of such contact. d. In the event that the mother demonstrates (with evidence that she is fully engaging and is compliant with treatment) the child’s time spent with the mother may increase by agreement to include overnights in the week and holiday periods in the UK. e. (subject to monitoring and (f) above) once the child has started full time school the time spent with the mother shall increase to : i. Every other weekend from Friday night from school until return to school Monday morning; and ii. Further additional contact in term time by agreement by the parties in advance. f. The child shall also spend time with the mother on times to be agreed on her birthday, the mother’s birthday, at Christmas and on Mothering Sunday. g. The child shall have regular indirect contact by Facetime/Whatsapp video which the father shall facilitate. h. There shall be such other contact between the child and the mother on such times and dates as the parties may agree in advance, subject to the mother’s continued progress in therapy and A’s needs.

116. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event that the mother fails to engage in regular mental health treatment, or her mental health is such that her ability to care safely for the child in compromised the father may suspend the contact for such period as is necessary to ensure that the child remains safe.

117. Judith Jones shall be instructed by the parties to prepare on a 4 monthly basis a short summary report on the progress the mother is making in therapy. She shall speak to the mother’s therapist(s) and the mother and father (and the nanny and any other third party she feels relevant to speak to) and send the short report to both parties. The costs of the monitoring shall be met (by agreement) by the father.

118. I find that a prohibited steps order is necessary to safeguard A from the very real harm that might arise if the mother should impulsively take flight outside the jurisdiction and seek to retain A abroad. She has the connections and she may have the motivation. All the evidence points to that as a possibility, and as she ( hopefully) rebuilds herself, she will necessarily go through a process that is very tough. She may make badly judged decisions in a despairing moment.

119. Therefore, there will be a prohibited steps order on taking A outside of the jurisdiction, without the father’s express permission. The mother must not: a. Apply for any travel documents or new or replacement passports in respect of the child (without prior written agreement of the father); b. Seek to remove the child from the care of the father or her nanny, or nursery or whoever the father has entrusted her care, without the specific agreement of the father; c. Remove the child from the jurisdiction of England and Wales, without written agreement of the father or further order of the court. d. Seek to repeat any further to other persons or organisations or authorities, the allegations made by her and not found by this court. Nor shall she repeat to other persons, organisations or authorities allegations that she has previously made in these proceedings against the father which she has not asked this court to determine are true. e. Denigrate the father to others whether in the presence or earshot of the child or otherwise

120. The child’s current passport (and any subsequent passport) shall remain in the custody of the father (save for any period when he consents to a holiday, following which the mother must return it to the father with the child).

121. Any therapist employed by the mother for treatment must be sent copies of the experts reports in this case and this order and the judgment of the court. That is my judgment. DDJ Rice MOTHER’S SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS SOUGHT When did the behaviour start and how long did it continue? Nature of behaviour / what happened Judge’s Finding

1. 2019 F engaged in sexual relations with multiple partners, including. M, without her consent or knowledge, and deliberately concealed his sexual history, breaching M’s trust. As to the first finding about the father engaging with sexual relations with multiple partners which breached her trust. I find that the father made full admissions about one overlapping relationship. This is not a court of relationship morals and what either of them have done in regard to previous partners is not determinative of A’s welfare. However, going forward I find the father is both honest and open about his own failings in a way that the mother is not. This again will feed into A’s understanding of do people mean what they say and can she rely on them.

2. 2007 – 2009; 2016 Historic Assault The mother alleges there were two historical sexual assaults while the mother was at university (2007) and in employment (2016) (not by the father) which she characterised as a serious rape and a sexual assault (but did not mention on a number of occasions when she was being asked about her psychosexual history). I am troubled that the mother told the court that she had evidence that she was about to obtain but by this hearing nothing of substance has been provided. Nevertheless, just because the mother lied about many other issues, does not mean she has lied about this. Rape is notoriously the cause of complicated trauma. Whether these rapes happened as she says they did I cannot be sure. However, I notice that here was some corroboration from two of her witnesses, who had direct knowledge of the events themselves and whose evidence was unchallenged by the father. I therefore suspect there was some truth in the mother’s personal history of these sexual assaults. FATHER’S SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS SOUGHT When did the behaviour start and how long did it continue? Nature of behaviour / what happened Judges findings

1. From A’s birth September 2021 to present A has been exposed to volatile and erratic/angry behaviour on the part of the mother which A will have found emotionally confusing and frightening. It is not possible to set out a schedule of all incidents of such behaviour, but the father lists a number of examples: Found as pleaded. September 2022 The mother experienced a mental health breakdown while A was in her care and then attempted suicide. The father does not yet know to what extent A was exposed to the mother’s breakdown and its aftermath as that has not been disclosed by the mother but the risk to A of mother’s attempted suicide has yet to be quantified. Found as pleaded 27 February 2023 The father received telephone calls from the mother’s family in which they shared concerns about the mother’s mental health and its impact on A, raising as they did, welfare and safeguarding concerns. Found as pleaded

2. July 2019 to September 2022 The mother has raised the issue of her mental health in these proceedings and the father agrees that this is a significant issue concerning A’s welfare. As a result of the mother’s psychological functioning, A is at risk of emotional harm from the mother (see the experts reports). It is not possible to set out a schedule of all incidents which point to this risk, but the father lists a number of indicative examples: Found as pleaded July 2019 to September 2022 When the parties began dating, the mother informed the father that she was the beneficiary a family trust valued in excess of £60m from the proceeds of arms dealing which a relative had been involved in. On 01.01.2020 the mother told the father that she wanted to establish a trust in his late father’s name to further his charitable interests in underprivileged young people and homelessness. The mother put the father in touch with ‘ Ms BC, who she said was a wealth manager who would assist with establishing the trust. The father exchanged emails with ‘Ms BC’ between January and March 2020. In August 2021 the mother informed the father that the trust had been stolen by a foreign government along with many other raids on accounts and that it didn’t look like there would be much left. In July 2022 the father received an anonymous email warning him that the mother was a liar and that BC didn’t exist. Suspicious, the father attempted to log into Ms BC’s gmail account using a password that the mother had shared with him during their relationship as her usual password. The password given to him by the mother gained access to the email account in Ms BC’s name and the father discovered that in fact it had been the mother impersonating (the real) BC over a period of 3 years. The father tried to download Ms BC’s mailbox to retain a record of the deception. This prompted an automatic alert to the mother who telephoned him and admitted that she had been impersonating Ms BC. The father was shocked and hurt by the level of deceit perpetrated by the mother over such a long period and particularly as she had used his late father’s memory. The level of deception is such that it gives rise to real concerns as to mother’s veracity in respect of all matters and in her dealings with the father in respect of A Found as pleaded August 2022 – 19/04/23 The mother repeatedly claimed to the father that her father was not her biological father and that her biological father had died in a shrapnel incident. The father has subsequently discovered this to be all untrue. The truth is important to A’s identity as she get older and more aware and the fact that mother still refuses to tell the truth about her family is a welfare concern. Found as pleaded June 2020 The mother claimed to her employers, that she was representing a famous singer and promised a significant pledge from him. The father has subsequently discovered this to be demonstrably untrue. Whilst no direct impact to A, it is further concerning deceptive behaviour. Found as pleaded. I add that where he says there is no direct impact to , I find that these lies are directly impactful on A if the mother loses her employment or ends up with a criminal record. They have a great deal of potential to be much more harmful than they have been hitherto. 15 to 23 July 2020 Whilst in a relationship with the father, the mother was, at the same time, conducting a relationship with another man. This man found (was left by the mother) what purported to be a suicide note from the mother to her father. The deception and double life has not been accepted by the mother and that remains a concern for the future for her parenting of A. Found as pleaded Discovered December 2022 The mother registered a Wise payment card using the father’s bank account details and used it on three occasions in December 2022 to spend £383.46. Once confronted the mother said it was a ‘mistake’ and paid the money back to the father. It was deliberate and dishonest rather than a mistake which the mother continues to deny. Found as pleaded 3 June 2023 False serious allegations made against the father: The mother, having previously presented herself as able to work in partnership with the father and being content for him to spend long periods of unsupervised time with A, has nonetheless, within these proceedings, fabricated very serious allegations against the father in apparent support for her case for removal of A to country Z. The father denies these allegations, many of which in any event relate to infidelity and adult issues. In particular: The allegation that the father raped the mother is untrue; The allegation that the father sexually assaulted a previous partner (as supposedly disclosed on a Clare’s Law request, to the mother) is untrue The mother’s fabrication of these allegations presents a real risk to A’s relationship with the father and to A’s emotional and psychological wellbeing and what she will or may falsely tell A as she grows. Found as pleaded DDJ Rice 19 th July 2024