Family Court Examines Allegations of Abuse in Wokingham Borough Council v The Mother & Ors: A Critical Analysis

Citation: [2023] EWFC 196
Judgment on


In the matter of Wokingham Borough Council v The Mother & Ors, the Family Court at Slough undertook a thorough examination of allegations of physical and emotional abuse against the children by their mother and father. The judgment showcases the application of various legal principles concerning fact-finding in cases involving alleged child abuse. This article critically analyzes the key topics and legal principles harnessed by His Honour Judge Richard Case in reaching a determination.

Key Facts

The case revolves around allegations of severe physical abuse inflicted by the parents upon their two children, CD (mid-teens) and CE (early-teens). The allegations included beating with canes, sticks, a metal rod, subjecting the children to stress positions, threats with a kitchen knife, and forcing them to consume spoonfuls of pepper. The children were removed from their parents’ care following a strategy meeting, leading to police protection and interim care orders. The parents faced criminal charges, and the court was tasked with fact-finding in relation to certain allegations made against them.

The judgment rests upon several legal principles crucial to family law and fact-finding in cases of alleged abuse:

  1. Burden and Standard of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the applicant, in this case, Wokingham Borough Council. The standard of proof is one of the balance of probabilities, meaning the court must feel that it is more likely than not that the alleged events occurred.

  2. Fact-Finding: The court’s function in a fact-finding hearing requires a holistic assessment of all available evidence. Inferences about the alleged events must be drawn from the evidence presented, not from speculation or suspicion.

  3. Evidence of Children: The evidence of children, especially the video-recorded interviews, is inherently hearsay but can be considered substantive if the interviews were conducted adhering to the Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) guidelines. The court recognizes the potential suggestibility and vulnerability of children’s accounts.

  4. Hearsay Evidence: Hearsay evidence is permissible in family court proceedings. However, the weight given to such evidence depends on various factors, such as the reliability of the person reporting the child’s statements and the circumstances under which they were made.

  5. Credibility of Witnesses: The lucidity and consistency of a witness’s statements are evaluated along with their possible motivations to lie or tell the truth. A witness lying about some aspects does not necessarily mean their entire testimony is discredited.

  6. Emotional Harm: The court must also consider whether the children have suffered emotional harm due to the abuse or witnessing abuse, which can be concluded in the affirmative even without a specific finding of physical abuse.


The court made nuanced findings on several specific allegations:

  • Findings Made: The court found that the mother assaulted both children with a cane on various occasions and threatened them with a kitchen knife. It established that the father subjected the children to painful stress positions and beat them if they moved from those positions while in Nigeria.

  • Findings Not Made: The court did not make findings on some allegations due to insufficient evidence or inconsistencies in the children’s testimonies.

  • Emotional Harm: The court concluded that the children suffered emotional harm by being assaulted and witnessing their siblings being assaulted.


The judgment of Wokingham Borough Council v The Mother & Ors carefully applies established legal principles pertinent to fact-finding in alleged child abuse cases. His Honour Judge Richard Case diligently dissected the available evidence, giving due regard to the inherent complexities of relying on children’s testimonies and the credibility of witnesses. The case underscores the need for a methodical approach in scrutinizing evidence, particularly in sensitive familial contexts where abuse is alleged. UK legal professionals may draw from the reasoned application of legal tenets in this judgment for future reference in similar cases.

Related Summaries