N-C (Sexual Abuse Allegations), Re
[2024] EWFC 174 (B)
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Father & Ors
7 June 2023
[2023] EWFC 112 (B)
Family Court
A sister said her brother touched her inappropriately. The school messed up the investigation, making it hard to know what really happened. The brother said it didn't happen. The judge didn't believe the sister's story because of the bad investigation, but said the dad should have taught his kids more about growing up and staying safe online.
Key Facts
- •Fact-finding hearing concerning allegations of sexual abuse by LM against MM and whether their father knew.
- •LM, born [redacted], and MM, born [redacted], are siblings whose mother passed away in November 2020.
- •MM made allegations of sexual abuse against LM to her school on March 11, 2022.
- •The school's initial response to MM's disclosure was unstructured and lacked forensic rigour, potentially influencing her account.
- •MM's ABE interview revealed a fluent and detailed account, but concerns arose regarding leading questions and MM's suggestibility.
- •LM consistently denied the allegations.
- •The father's role in the care and supervision of the children was questioned.
Legal Principles
Burden of proof rests on the person asserting it; standard of proof is balance of probabilities.
Judgment paragraph 17
Evidence must be considered holistically, not in separate compartments.
Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558, Judgment paragraph 19
Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) guidelines apply to all investigations involving child abuse allegations, serving as a yardstick of good practice.
SR [2018] EWCA Civ 2738, Judgment paragraph 108
Failure to comply with ABE guidance requires assessment of the extent to which reliability is undermined.
Re Y and E [2019] EWCA Civ 206, Judgment paragraph 110
Judges can make findings not explicitly sought by parties, but cautiously and based on secure evidence.
Re S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 20, Re G and B (Fact finding) [2009] EWCA Civ 10, Judgment paragraphs 213, 214
Outcomes
The court could not make findings that the local authority's allegations were made out.
The initial investigation by the school lacked forensic rigour, potentially contaminating MM's account. Subsequent ABE interview, while providing the clearest account, was also compromised by failures to adhere to best practice guidelines, given MM's suggestibility. LM's consistent denials were also considered.
Finding that the father failed to ensure his children received appropriate guidance on puberty, sex, relationships, and online safety.
The father demonstrated a lack of proactive involvement in his children's lives, failing to monitor their online activity or provide sex education. This was deemed inadequate parental responsibility.