C (A Child: Parental Order & Child Arrangements Order)

In family fact-finding proceedings, a conclusion that a witness has lied on one issue does not establish that the witness has lied generally. The court must consider the reason for the lie and its connection with the disputed issue. The principles in R v Lucas apply in the Family Court. A lie is not direct proof of guilt. It may provide corroboration only where it is deliberate, material and has no innocent explanation. The court must assess the whole evidence, including inconsistencies, conduct and documentary material, before making findings on the balance of probabilities.

The court considered applications for a parental order, protective orders and a child arrangements order concerning a child born through surrogacy. The fact-finding hearing concerned whether the father knew of and consented to a second surrogacy arrangement, whether he consented to the continued storage of his genetic material, and allegations that he had assaulted or threatened the mother. The welfare and future child arrangements issues were adjourned for a later hearing. The central issue was the reliability of the parties’ competing accounts.

1. Fact-finding framework. The burden rested on the party seeking a finding against another person. The standard was the balance of probabilities, applying Re B [2008] UKHL 35.
2. Approach to lies. The principles in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720, as applied in family proceedings and explained in Re H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136, required caution. A lie could not, of itself, amount to direct proof of guilt. It could corroborate other evidence only if it was deliberate, related to a material issue and had no innocent explanation. A lie on one matter did not require rejection of the witness’s evidence generally.
3. The mother’s evidence about the second surrogacy was materially inconsistent with the contemporaneous emails, the parties’ financial arrangements, the absence of disclosure to professionals and the surrounding conduct. The court found that she had deliberately concealed the second surrogacy from the father until 5 March 2019.
4. The father was found to be a measured, reliable and credible witness. The court found that he did not consent to the extension of storage of his genetic material and did not sign or consent to the second surrogacy agreement.
5. The allegations that the father had assaulted or threatened the mother, or smashed framed photographs, were not made out. The court made no findings of domestic abuse against him.
6. The judgment determined only the fact-finding issues. Welfare and future care arrangements for the child were reserved for the adjourned hearing.