Glamorgan v ABC (Fact Finding)

In care proceedings, the local authority bears the burden of proving disputed facts on the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of an allegation does not alter that standard, although inherent probabilities may be relevant. Where the evidence is equivocal, the court must not make the finding sought.

Findings must be based on evidence and proper inferences, rather than suspicion or speculation. A parent’s lies require analysis of their purpose and relevance to the alleged harm. Dishonesty may form part of the threshold case where it prevents the local authority from assessing whether children are safe. The court must distinguish unacceptable parenting from parenting that justifies state intervention.

The Vale of Glamorgan Council brought public law care proceedings concerning four children. The principal disputed issues concerned domestic violence involving the Mother and Father B, the Mother’s contact with a convicted child sex offender, cannabis use, alleged neglect, depression and alleged dishonesty towards professionals.

The court conducted a fact-finding hearing before the welfare stage. The Local Authority abandoned allegations that Child A had been sexually abused and instead relied on failure to protect, domestic violence, substance misuse and misleading conduct. The central issues were whether the threshold criteria under Children Act 1989, section 31(2), were established and which allegations could properly be found.

1. The threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 required proof that each child was suffering, or was likely to suffer, significant harm attributable to care falling below the standard reasonably expected of a parent. Establishing the threshold did not itself determine whether a care order should be made.

2. The Local Authority bore the burden of proof. The applicable standard was the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of an allegation did not raise that standard, although inherent probabilities could be considered. If the evidence concerning a particular finding was equivocal, the finding could not be made.

3. Findings had to be based on evidence and proper inferences, not suspicion or speculation. The court applied the guidance in Darlington Borough Council v A [2015] EWFC 11 concerning evidential foundations, the need to connect findings to significant harm, and the need to analyse the purpose and relevance of alleged lies. The approach in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [207] 1 FLR 2050 was applied: the state was not required to protect children from every consequence of defective, eccentric or inconsistent parenting.

4. The Mother’s contact with Mr Hughes was not itself necessarily unreasonable merely because she knew he had been imprisoned. However, she should have ensured that contact with the children was supervised and should have made proper enquiries. Allowing Child A, aged four, to stay overnight with an adult man whom she scarcely knew was unreasonable and, in the circumstances found, placed him at risk.

5. The court found repeated domestic violence by Father B, including serious violence in Child B’s presence, and found that the Mother had failed to protect the children by maintaining the relationship, permitting contact and concealing the true position from professionals. Her cannabis use formed part of the overall picture because it could impair her ability to respond to a crisis, although it was not alone sufficient to justify removing the children.

6. Most of the alleged general neglect and depression allegations were not proved. The court found that the Mother’s repeated lies about Father B, Mr Hughes and other matters prevented the Local Authority from reliably assessing whether the children were safe. Those lies were therefore an integral part of the threshold case.

7. The threshold document was proved as amended. Welfare issues, including the children’s future placements, were left for the later hearing.

Not an appeal. The judgment records a fact-finding determination in care proceedings; no prior appellate decision is stated.