Birmingham City Council v M & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3312 (Fam)
Local Authority v S & Ors
8 March 2023
[2023] EWFC 85
Family Court
A little girl said her dad hurt her, but it wasn't true. Her mum made her say it. So, a judge said the girl needs to live with nice foster parents for a while to get better, and then hopefully she can see both her parents again.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concerning a 9-year-old girl, C.
- •Allegations of sexual abuse made by C against her father, T.
- •Allegations that the mother, S, coached or influenced C to make false allegations against T.
- •Concerns about S's parenting and enmeshed relationship with C.
- •Expert psychological assessments conducted on C, S, and T.
- •Extensive court proceedings, including multiple hearings and a significant volume of evidence (over 9,000 pages).
- •C's significant school refusal.
- •C's sudden return to full-time school attendance.
Legal Principles
Standard of proof in family court proceedings is the balance of probabilities.
Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41
Hearsay evidence is admissible but its weight must be carefully considered.
Westminster City Council v M, F and H [2017] EWHC 518 (Fam)
Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in care proceedings.
Children Act 1989, Section 1(3)
Guidance on interviewing children making allegations of abuse must be followed.
AS v TH (False Allegations of Abuse) [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam); ABE Guidance (2022)
Outcomes
Care order granted.
The judge found that C suffered, and was likely to suffer, significant emotional harm due to S's unreasonable parenting. The judge rejected the allegations of sexual abuse against T, finding that S actively promoted a false narrative of abuse, significantly harming C's emotional well-being. Removal to foster care was deemed necessary to enable therapeutic intervention and to address C's false belief in the abuse.
Allegations of sexual abuse against the father are rejected.
Lack of detail and emotional congruence in C's accounts; inherent improbabilities in the allegations; significant delay between allegations and interviews; procedural errors in the investigation; and the judge's assessment of the father's character and demeanor.