A (a child), Re
[2023] EWFC 198 (B)
A Local Authority v AZ & Ors
14 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 3513 (Fam)
High Court
A teenage girl said her dad abused her, then took it back. The judge believed her first story because of inconsistencies in her later statements and because her family pressured her to lie. The dad is in trouble for abuse and controlling his family. The mom isn't blamed because it's not clear how much she knew.
Key Facts
- •DZ, aged 16, made serious allegations of sexual abuse against her father, BX, later retracting them.
- •The Local Authority (LA) asserted the allegations were true.
- •Medical evidence showed a healed hymenal laceration consistent with penetration.
- •DZ provided inconsistent explanations for her allegations and retractions, involving a boy and a sex toy.
- •A letter was found suggesting pressure on DZ to retract her allegations.
- •The mother, AZ, gave inconsistent accounts, potentially influenced by fear of deportation and pressure from BX.
- •BX gave evasive and untruthful testimony.
- •GX, DZ's older brother, gave inconsistent evidence and demonstrated controlling behaviour towards DZ.
- •No one at school noticed any red flags.
Legal Principles
Burden of proof on the LA; civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities).
None explicitly stated, but implied throughout the judgement.
Careful consideration of retractions; questions must be addressed in the judge's reasons.
Re W (Fact Finding Hearing: Hearsay Evidence) [2013] EWCA Civ 1374
Analysis of lies; considering reasons for lying and relevance to the case.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Careful approach to allegations of sexual abuse; considering forensic difficulties, child suggestibility, and memory issues.
Re P (Sexual Abuse- Findings of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27
Resisting the 'child protection imperative'; rigorous scrutiny of evidence.
Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child’s Evidence) [2006] 2 FLR 1071
Outcomes
DZ's original allegations of sexual and physical abuse by BX were found to be true.
Consistent initial accounts, incredible retractions and explanations, pressure to retract, lack of truthfulness from parents, some corroborative evidence of BX's temper.
Finding of coercive control by BX over AZ and DZ.
BX's instrumental role in the letter pressuring DZ, and his controlling behaviour as evidenced by his testimony and that of GX.
No finding of failure to protect by AZ.
Uncertainty about AZ's knowledge and the unfairness of such a finding given the circumstances.
No findings of abuse of FX.
Lack of specific evidence.
No further findings on paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Threshold.
Not specified.
Children likely safe at home with AZ, BX excluded, pending further assessment.
AZ's good care, children's wishes, and no immediate risk to CX.