A Local Authority v AZ & Ors

In a family fact-finding hearing, allegations must be determined on the balance of probabilities by reference to evidence, not speculation or rumour. The court must consider each allegation separately while surveying the whole evidential canvas and avoiding compartmentalisation. Retractions require careful and specific consideration, but do not prevent a finding that the original allegation was true. Proven lies must be analysed as to whether they were lies, why they were told, and their relevance; a lie about one issue does not establish that everything else is untrue. Expert evidence forms part of the evidence but the judge remains responsible for deciding the facts. Findings must remain proportionate and sufficiently supported by the evidence.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning three children. The eldest child, DZ, initially alleged repeated sexual and physical abuse by her father, BX, and later retracted those allegations. The local authority maintained that the original allegations were true and relied on them in its threshold case. The mother’s changing accounts, alleged pressure on DZ to retract, the parents’ credibility, medical evidence and the circumstances in which the allegations and retractions arose were central issues.

The court conducted a joint fact-finding and welfare hearing. The principal questions were whether the alleged sexual and physical abuse occurred, whether the father exercised coercive control, whether the mother failed to protect DZ, and whether findings concerning the other children were justified.

1. Fact-finding principles. The local authority bore the burden of proof. The civil standard applied. The court had to decide each allegation on the evidence, while considering the evidence holistically and avoiding both speculation and the assumption that a failure to explain an allegation had a sinister explanation.
2. Retractions and lies. A retraction required careful and specific consideration, but did not prevent acceptance of the original complaint. Applying the approach in R v Lucas, the court first had to determine whether a lie had been proved, distinguish lies from mistake, confusion, memory failure and distortion, then consider why it was told and its relevance. A lie about one issue did not establish lies about every issue.
3. Expert and medical evidence. Expert evidence was advisory and had to be assessed as part of the whole evidential picture. The judge retained responsibility for the factual decision. The medical evidence was not determinative and received only limited weight.
4. Findings. DZ’s original allegations were accepted as true. The court found sexual and physical abuse by the father and coercive control over the mother and DZ. It found no failure by the mother to protect DZ because the issue was insufficiently clear and such a finding would be unsafe and disproportionate. No findings were made concerning abuse of FX.
5. Welfare. Final welfare decisions could not yet be made. Pending further assessment, the children were considered likely to be safe with the mother if the father remained excluded. DZ’s age, wishes and the practical reality that she wished to live at home meant that she had to remain there, subject to professional support and a further hearing.

First-instance fact-finding and welfare hearing in the High Court (Family Division). No appellate history was stated in the judgment.