A City Council v M & Ors

In fact-finding proceedings, the burden rests on the party seeking findings and the standard is the balance of probabilities. A witness’s lies about some matters do not establish that the whole of the witness’s evidence is false. The court must assess discrepancies in context, including stress, memory, interpretation, delay and repeated questioning.

Where a parent has experienced domestic abuse and is vulnerable or controlled, the court should avoid unnecessary blame-based findings about failure to protect. The relevant future question is whether the parent can protect the child if care is resumed, assessed at the welfare stage.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning a young child after allegations that the father had abused the mother and child, deliberately stranded the mother abroad, separated her from the child, and failed to explain a burn suffered by the child. Findings were also sought that the mother had failed to protect the child by not preventing domestic abuse and by travelling abroad contrary to a child protection plan.

The central issues were the credibility of the parents, the circumstances of the child’s injuries and separation from the mother, and whether findings against the mother were necessary or appropriate.

1. The court made findings that the father had physically and verbally abused the mother, exercised coercive control, assaulted the child in April 2019, deliberately removed the child from the mother’s care, and concealed the circumstances in which the child sustained a burn. The child had suffered significant physical harm while in the care of relatives or the father.
2. The local authority and the mother bore the burden of proving the facts alleged. The applicable standard was the balance of probabilities. The court applied the caution that lies may arise from shame, loyalty, panic, fear or distress, and that lying about one matter does not mean that a witness has lied about everything.
3. Discrepancies in repeated accounts required careful evaluation. They might result from lies intended to conceal culpability, but also from faulty recollection, stress, interpretation, inaccurate recording, delay and repeated questioning. The variations in the mother’s account were not material in the circumstances.
4. The court declined to find that the mother had failed to protect the child. She had herself been the victim of domestic abuse and was vulnerable because of her circumstances, lack of language and isolation. It was neither necessary nor appropriate to label her or treat her as blameworthy.
5. The relevant issue concerning the mother was instead whether she could protect the child from future significant harm if care resumed. That question was better addressed at the welfare stage. The threshold criteria were already amply met.