The notorious 'father of lies' label comes from Plutarch, who used it in a strange essay called On the Malice of Herodotus in reply to Cicero. One possible reason for Plutarch's enmity is that Herodotus treats Thebes badly in the Histories. Many historians agreed with Plutarch's reading of the Histories, with Fehling and Armayor notably supporting the view that Herodotus was shoddy and unreliable at best, and make-believe at worst. But this is no longer the consensus view.

I'd start with Thucydides. Early in the History of the Pelleponesian War he says "To hear this history rehearsed, for that there be inserted in it no fables, shall be perhaps not delightful. But he that desires to look into the truth of things done, and which (according to the condition of humanity) may be done again, or at least their like, shall find enough herein to make him think it profitable. And it is compiled rather for an everlasting possession than to be rehearsed for a prize." (Thuc 1.22 with a link to the Greek here if you need it) This is an implicit criticism of Herodotus. Basically he is saying, I have found what actually happened and I will present it to you without fluff, of which there is a lot in Herodotus. And further that it is not the invention of a Logos maker or a rhapsode, people who sang epic poetry, as Herodotus wrote his history to be both publicly recited and in the style of a prose epic.

If we accept that this passage is indeed about Herodotus, which it almost certainly is, its a quite damning critique from a close contemporary. Although the term "father of lies" is not used Thucydides might not be a bad place to start for a general discussion about the accuracy/inaccuracy of Herodotus.

I can not find anything

Can you elaborate on that? Where/how have you looked?