T (Children)

In a fact-finding hearing, the party making allegations bears the burden of proving them on the ordinary civil standard. Allegations should be examined individually and, where appropriate, cumulatively, but a cumulative assessment cannot replace proof of the underlying facts or establish responsibility without a reliable evidential link. Ambiguous medical findings, unreliable or leading child interviews, and child behaviour capable of innocent explanations may carry little or no probative weight. The court may accept that sexualised behaviour occurred while finding that it does not establish who caused it. A fact-finding judgment should distinguish proved conduct from conduct relevant to future welfare decisions.

The mother alleged that the father had physically or sexually abused their two children and had exposed them, and a disabled child living with the family, to inappropriate sexualised language or behaviour. Contact had stopped after the allegations were made, and the court conducted a fact-finding hearing addressing the allegations listed in a Scott schedule. Several allegations were withdrawn. The central issues were whether the remaining allegations were proved and whether the medical evidence, recorded interviews, hearsay material and children’s behaviour established abusive conduct by the father.

1. Burden and standard of proof. The mother, as the person making the allegations, bore the burden of proof. The applicable standard was the ordinary civil standard, namely proof on the balance of probabilities.
2. Assessment of allegations. The allegations had to be considered separately and individually, while also being viewed as a whole where the case depended on their alleged cumulative effect. Cumulative weight could not establish abuse where the individual matters were unreliable, trivial, or capable of innocent explanations.
3. Evidence. The absence of physical signs did not exclude abuse, but in this case the medical evidence did not reliably support the allegations. The scarring found near Z’s anus was consistent with penetration but was also explicable by Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and eczema. The recorded interviews of K and R were materially affected by age, disability, leading questions, prompting and unreliability. No judicial reliance could be placed on R’s interview as evidence against the father.
4. Findings. The court accepted that some children’s sexualised behaviour and use of rude words had occurred, but found no reliable evidence linking that behaviour to the father. It rejected the allegations of sexualised conduct and exposure, while accepting the father’s single act of mild physical chastisement and rejecting any serious threat permanently to remove the children to Algeria.
5. The case was not wholly fabricated, and the mother had overreacted and mistakenly inferred abuse. Nothing proved against the father should impede contact, including unsupervised direct contact, or affect future arrangements for the children’s upbringing. Decisions about the way forward were left to a judge with judicial continuity if agreement could not be reached.