J, P and Q (Care proceedings), Re
[2024] EWCA Civ 22
M (Children: Findings of Fact)
29 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1290
Court of Appeal
A father appealed court decisions saying he sexually and physically abused his three daughters. The appeal court reviewed the evidence, including what the daughters said and medical reports, and decided the judge's original decision was correct. The dad's appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning findings of fact in care proceedings involving three girls (A, B, and C).
- •Father appeals two threshold findings: sexual abuse of C and physical abuse of B.
- •Children were in foster care, then returned to mother.
- •Multiple threshold findings against both parents, including parental neglect, misuse of cannabis, domestic abuse, and the father's mental health issues.
- •Concerns raised by nursery staff regarding injuries and unusual behavior of children.
- •Medical examinations revealed injury to C's genitalia; the cause was inconclusive.
- •Expert paediatric opinion indicated the injury was traumatic, possibly due to sexual abuse or accident.
- •ABE interviews conducted with the children.
- •Judge found father's evidence illogical and implausible; she considered the ABE interviews as having high forensic value.
- •Judge's findings were based on a constellation of factors including children's accounts, medical evidence, and parental behavior.
Legal Principles
The burden of proof in care proceedings remains on the local authority. However, the absence of a history of injury from the carer, when such a history might be expected, can be a significant factor.
Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41 at [15-17]
Assessment of ABE interviews requires careful consideration of the child's age, the delay before the interview, and the use of questioning techniques.
ABE Guidance of January 2022 at E.3.5
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's findings were supported by the evidence and her reasoning was sound. The court rejected arguments that the judge had made findings unsupported by evidence, reversed the burden of proof, or placed undue weight on ABE interviews.
Family Court to amend the order to correct a clerical error regarding the finding of sexual abuse against the father.
A clerical error in the order was identified where the judge's finding of the father harming C's vagina was incorrectly stated as him biting her. The court's decision to invite the Family Court to amend the order based on the slip rule was agreed upon by both parties.