A, B & C (Fact-Finding: Gonorrhoea)
[2023] EWCA Civ 437
Liverpool City Council v M & Ors
6 November 2024
[2024] EWFC 318 (B)
Family Court
A little girl got a disease. Doctors thought it was from sexual abuse, but the judge decided it was more likely she got it from a dirty towel or something her uncle touched because he wasn't very clean. The judge didn't blame the mom because she didn't have much contact with the girl.
Key Facts
- •6-year-old C tested positive for gonorrhoea in June 2023 while living with her maternal grandmother and her partner.
- •C's mother (M) and uncle (P) also tested positive for gonorrhoea around the same time.
- •C showed no signs of sexual abuse and made no allegations against either M or P.
- •The local authority alleged C contracted gonorrhoea through sexual abuse by either M or P.
- •Expert evidence suggested sexual abuse as the likely cause, but fomite transmission (indirect contact via inanimate objects) couldn't be entirely ruled out.
- •P displayed poor hygiene practices and provided inconsistent accounts of when he discovered his gonorrhoea infection.
- •M failed to attend the fact-finding hearing and provide evidence.
- •The grandmother's testimony described a steamy bathroom and P's habit of leaving damp towels around.
- •The experts agreed that gonorrhoea's fragility meant fomite transmission was unlikely but possible given moist conditions.
- •Police records show previous allegations of indecent exposure and inappropriate behaviour against P.
Legal Principles
Burden of proof rests on the local authority; it must not be reversed.
A, B AND C (FACT -FINDING: GONORRHOEA) [2023] EWCA Civ 437; Re M (Fact-finding: Burden of Proof) [2013] 2 FLR 874; Re X (No 3) [2015] EWHC 3651 Fam; Re Y (No 3) [2016] EWHC 503 Fam
Standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Re B (Children)(Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35
Court must consider the 'broad canvas' of evidence.
Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838; Lancashire County Council v M, F, and J (By their Children’s Guardian) [2023] EWHC 3097 (Fam)
Lies told by witnesses must be assessed based on the Lucas principles.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720; Re H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136; Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451
Circumstantial evidence requires consideration of the whole picture and likelihood of coincidence.
Re A (Children: Care Proceedings: Burden of Proof) [2018] EWCA Civ 1718; Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty [2013] 1 WLR 1183
Expert evidence advises, but the judge decides.
Re B (Care: Expert Witnesses ) [1996] 1 FLR 667
Non-participation of a party at a fact-finding hearing can lead to inferences being drawn.
Children Act 1989 Section 98; Re O (Fact Finding Hearing: Parents Refusing to Participate) [2018] EWFC 48; Re L and M (Children ) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam); Re O (Care Proceedings: Evidence) [2003] EWHC 2011 (Fam)
Outcomes
The court found that C contracted gonorrhoea through fomite transmission from P.
While expert evidence suggested sexual abuse as more likely, the court considered the totality of evidence, including P's poor hygiene, inconsistent accounts, and the possibility of fomite transmission in a steamy bathroom environment.
The court did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that M sexually abused C.
M's limited contact with C and the rarity of female-to-female gonorrhoea transmission were considered.