G (A Child : Fact-Finding Hearing)

In fact-finding proceedings concerning alleged domestic abuse and parental conflict, disputed facts must be decided on the balance of probabilities. Evidence must be assessed as a whole, and findings must rest on evidence and proper inferences rather than suspicion or speculation. Expert opinion remains for the judge to weigh with all other evidence. Lies, delay, retraction and memory difficulties do not automatically invalidate a witness’s account. Patterns of domestic abuse may bear on future child welfare. Unlawful removal of a child from the jurisdiction cannot be justified as a parent’s only option where lawful remedies remain available, and may itself cause significant emotional harm.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning G, aged 12, after her mother returned with her to England following almost three years abroad in non-Hague Convention countries. The proceedings arose from a long-running dispute about contact between G and her parents. The local authority sought findings concerning the father’s domestic abuse, the mother’s obstruction of contact and abduction of G, the resulting harm to G, and the maternal grandparents’ attitude to those events. The mother sought findings against the father and maintained that removal was necessary to protect G. The central issues were whether the alleged abuse and other conduct were proved, what caused G’s emotional harm, and whether the parents and grandparents could presently meet her needs.

1. Burden and standard of proof. The burden rested on the party advancing each allegation. The applicable standard was the balance of probabilities. A fact in issue was either proved or not proved; the court could not base findings on a possibility.
2. Assessment of evidence. The court considered the evidence in the round. Individual items could not be assessed in isolation. Expert opinions were important but did not determine the facts, which remained a matter for the judge. Findings had to be based on evidence and proper inferences rather than suspicion or speculation. The court assessed credibility and reliability while allowing for lies motivated by fear, shame, loyalty or distress, and for faulty recollection, delay, repeated questioning and inaccurate recording.
3. Domestic abuse. The court applied the principles in Practice Direction 12J. Patterns of controlling, coercive, threatening or abusive behaviour were relevant, and domestic abuse could harm a child directly or indirectly. The father’s historical abuse of D and abusive and violent conduct towards the mother were proved. The alleged assault on K was not proved. G’s statements about it were treated as expressions of generalised anxiety arising from the toxic parental relationship.
4. Abduction and harm. The mother’s removal and retention of G abroad were disproportionate and unreasonable. Lawful options had not been exhausted, so removal could not be justified as a Hobson’s choice. The abduction caused G significant emotional and psychological harm, including harm from separation, instability and the burden of believing that she was responsible.
5. Findings and future care. Both parents contributed to G’s significant emotional harm. The mother had obstructed contact and remained unable to meet G’s need for a relationship with her father. The father required therapeutic work and improved emotional regulation before unsupervised contact. The maternal grandmother needed therapeutic work to develop sufficient insight.

First-instance fact-finding determination in care proceedings. The judgment records an earlier Court of Appeal decision concerning passport orders, reported as [2014] EWCA Civ 843, but that decision was not an appeal from the present determination.