AS v TH (False Allegations of Abuse) (Rev 1)

In private-law fact-finding proceedings, abuse allegations must be determined on the balance of probabilities by evaluating all available evidence in its wider family and social context. Evidence should not be assessed in separate compartments. Failure to prove an allegation does not, without more, establish that it is false. The court must give appropriate weight to hearsay and to repeated or poorly conducted interviews. For sexual-abuse allegations, it should first ask whether abuse is proved and only then address the perpetrator’s identity. Professionals must listen seriously without prejudging, record the child’s words accurately, avoid leading or repeated questioning, and make a broad, independent assessment. False allegations made or induced by a parent may amount to serious emotional abuse requiring intervention.

This was a first-instance fact-finding hearing concerning two children, NC and SH. Their mother, AS, alleged that TH had raped and abused her and had physically and sexually abused the children. TH denied the allegations and sought findings that they were false, that the children had been influenced or coached, and that the mother’s conduct had caused them emotional harm.

The court also considered the children’s removal from Scotland, the effect of orders made by the Scottish court, and the conduct of professionals who investigated the allegations. The central issues were whether the allegations were proved on the balance of probabilities, whether the children’s accounts were reliable, and whether the mother had caused or encouraged false allegations.

Disposition. The court found that none of the allegations against TH was proved. It found that the allegations of rape, domestic abuse and physical or sexual abuse were false, and that AS had caused the children to make or repeat false allegations. The children had suffered significant emotional harm as a result of her care.

1. The burden lay on the party asserting each fact, and the standard was the balance of probabilities. The court applied Re B [2008] UKHL 35, including the need to consider inherent probabilities. It assessed the evidence as a whole, in its wider social and family context, rather than in separate compartments. It also distinguished failure to prove an allegation from proof that it was false.
2. The court applied the two-stage approach to sexual-abuse allegations: first, whether sexual abuse occurred; and second, if so, whether the perpetrator was identified. It gave appropriate caution to the children’s hearsay evidence, inconsistencies, lack of corroboration and the circumstances in which their accounts emerged.
3. The professional investigations were seriously deficient. The assessment under s 47 of the Children Act 1989 was one-dimensional and failed to obtain basic independent information from fathers, relatives, schools and health professionals. Records were incomplete, interviews were repeated and often conducted in the presence of the mother or the other child, and several professionals used leading questions.
4. The court applied the relevant interviewing principles. Initial questioning should be limited, non-leading and directed to a brief account. A child’s words and the circumstances of an allegation should be recorded accurately and promptly. Failure to follow guidance did not automatically invalidate evidence, but the interviews in this case were so compromised that no weight could safely be attached to them without independent supporting evidence.
5. The court found that AS had fabricated or exaggerated allegations, exposed the children to inappropriate adult discussions, placed emotional pressure on them and, on occasion, coached them. The conduct amounted to emotional abuse and caused significant emotional harm. The findings were set out in the schedule, including that SH had been removed from Scotland without TH’s consent and in breach of Scottish orders.

First-instance fact-finding judgment. The judgment records that Newton J determined the children’s habitual residence in England for jurisdictional purposes and that the Scottish Sheriff’s Court made orders concerning SH’s return. No appeal from those decisions is stated.