A Council v M & Ors (Judgment 1: Fact-Finding)

In care proceedings, the court determines disputed facts on the balance of probabilities, with the burden resting on the party seeking the finding. State intervention in family life requires proof that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm attributable to unreasonable parenting. Fact-finding may include a holistic assessment of controlling behaviour, isolation, inappropriate discipline, exposure to adult sexual matters and the exploitation of a child. A child’s apparent cooperation does not necessarily amount to genuine agreement where psychological force has been used.

A local authority applied for care orders concerning four children. The fact-finding hearing principally concerned the mother’s treatment of the children, the father’s exclusion from their lives, their social isolation, alleged physical and emotional abuse, and the circumstances in which the eldest child became pregnant and gave birth.

The court had to decide whether the local authority had proved the disputed allegations and whether the threshold for state intervention was crossed in relation to the younger children. The hearing was confined to fact-finding; decisions about the children’s future were reserved for a later hearing.

The court accepted the eldest child’s evidence in its entirety and rejected the mother’s evidence on all disputed matters. The findings were made on the balance of probabilities. The judge added that, if necessary, the evidence was sufficiently strong to satisfy the higher standard of being sure.

1. The mother had deliberately excluded the father from the children’s lives, depriving them of a relationship with him and his family.
2. The children had been subjected to substantial social and familial isolation. Home education was not itself objectionable, but in this case it contributed to isolation and the children’s lack of wider experience.
3. The mother had used aggressive and inappropriate methods to secure compliance, including physical punishment, humiliating treatment, verbal abuse and the imposition of unsuitable sexual information and adult relationships on the children.
4. The eldest child became pregnant through an artificial-insemination programme planned and controlled by the mother, who intended to obtain a further child for herself. The mother involved the child from an early age, required painful and degrading practices, and later sought to conceal the true circumstances through fabricated accounts and documents.
5. The apparent cooperation of the children did not amount to genuine agreement. The judge explained that duress in this context meant psychological force causing a person to act contrary to their wishes or interests. The children had been aged 13 and 12 when the programme began and had cooperated because of the mother’s influence and pressure.
6. The local authority had established the threshold in relation to B, C and D. Final consideration of the precise expression of the threshold and the children’s future was deferred to the later hearing.

The court also directed limited disclosure of the judgment and addressed publication subject to the reporting restrictions protecting the family’s identities.