Key Facts
- •The case involves three children in foster care due to allegations of chronic neglect and sexual abuse.
- •The father is absent from the UK and has not participated in the proceedings.
- •The mother has a low cognitive ability and has given inconsistent evidence.
- •The court found a DNA match between the father's semen and a sample from the oldest daughter's underwear.
- •There were numerous messages between the father and his oldest daughter (UV) suggesting a sexual relationship.
- •The court found evidence suggesting the father had a sexual relationship with UV, including messages and images from his phone.
- •The mother was found to have failed to protect UV from the abuse and has provided misleading information throughout the proceedings.
Legal Principles
The burden of proving a fact rests on the person who asserts it. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
General principles of UK family law
Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to the other.
Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558
Adverse inferences can be drawn from a witness's absence or silence, but only if there is some evidence on the matter and the absence/silence cannot be credibly explained.
Re C (A Child)(Fact-Finding) [2022] EWCA Civ 584, Wiszniewski v Greater Manchester Health Authority [1988] PIQR 324
In assessing witness credibility, judges should guard against reliance solely on demeanour and consider the broader context.
Re M (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147
There is no pseudo burden on a parent to come up with an alternative explanation for events.
Lancashire County Council v R and W [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam)
Failure to protect can encompass a spectrum of behaviour, from direct knowledge to a failure of curiosity.
L-W (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 159
Outcomes
The court found that the father sexually abused UV.
DNA evidence, incriminating messages, and images on the father's phone.
The court found the mother failed to protect UV.
Lack of sufficient curiosity about UV's behaviour, inconsistent statements, and failure to disclose relevant information to authorities.
Adverse inferences were drawn from the father's failure to attend court and his departure from the UK.
His absence hindered the proceedings and prevented him from providing his side of the story.