Cumbria County Council v AT & Ors

In fact-finding proceedings concerning alleged child sexual abuse, findings must rest on evidence and properly drawn inferences, assessed in the context of the evidence as a whole. Young children are highly suggestible, particularly when questioned by adults, so all professionals and carers must avoid leading or encouraging allegations. A parent’s initially reasonable belief in a child’s account may later become unreasonable when developing evidence and expert material require alternative explanations to be considered. Persistent acceptance, encouragement or embellishment of allegations may constitute seriously deficient parenting and cause significant emotional harm, even where the original disclosure may have had an innocent explanation. A finding that the threshold is crossed does not, by itself, determine whether the child should be removed from the parent’s care.

The local authority sought a care order concerning a boy aged six, alleging that his mother had fabricated, encouraged or unreasonably accepted allegations that his father and others had sexually abused him. The mother initially maintained that extensive abuse had occurred, but shortly before trial accepted that the allegations were not true and conceded that the statutory threshold was met. No party ultimately sought findings that the father or other adults had sexually abused the child.

The central issues were whether the mother had deliberately fabricated the allegations, whether she had initially held a reasonable belief which later became unreasonable, and whether her conduct had caused the child significant harm. The court also considered the significance of suggestive questioning, flawed evidence-gathering and the changing chronology of the allegations.

1. Findings and outcome. The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the mother may initially have reasonably interpreted an innocent or ambiguous comment as indicating abuse. She then encouraged and embellished the allegations. After receiving Dr Thornton’s report in May 2019, her continued acceptance of the allegations and pursuit of findings against the father and others was no longer reasonable and caused T significant emotional harm. The local authority’s case against the mother was therefore made out.
2. Fact-finding principles. Applying the principles summarised in Re JS [2012] EWHC 1370, the burden lay on the local authority and the standard was the balance of probabilities. Findings had to be based on evidence and proper inferences, not suspicion or speculation. Evidence had to be assessed in the context of the totality of the evidence, with careful attention to the credibility and reliability of the parents.
3. Children’s evidence. The court considered the guidance in Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12, Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558, [2004] 2 FLR 838, Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child’s Evidence), Re SR (A Child) v Cambridgeshire CC [2018] EWCA Civ 2738, and AS v TH (False Allegations of Abuse (Rev 1)) [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam). The errors in the ABE interviews were not decisive because T made minimal allegations in them. The real issue was the danger that repeated questioning, prompting and unquestioning professional support had encouraged further allegations.
4. Threshold and future care. The mother’s concession that the section 31(2) threshold criteria were met was consistent with the findings. The court declined to decide T’s future care in this judgment. A psychological assessment of the mother was required, together with steps towards indirect contact between T and his father.