GO v MM

Where children have been led to believe that serious allegations found to be false are true, leaving that narrative unchallenged may cause significant emotional harm. The court must address the continuing welfare consequences of the findings and ensure that appropriate therapeutic work confronts the false narrative in a safe and structured way.

Appellate intervention is justified where the lower court has concluded that it can do no more, but the children remain exposed to substantial harm because the essential work identified by expert evidence has not occurred. Appropriate orders may require attendance at therapy, prohibit repetition of rejected allegations, and provide for further review.

The proceedings concerned three children whose parents had been involved in prolonged private-law litigation. At a fact-finding hearing in November 2021, HHJ Jones found that the mother and maternal aunt had manipulated the children into making serious but unsupported allegations of sexual and physical abuse against the father, causing significant emotional harm.

Although therapeutic work was directed, the organisation instructed did not tell the children about the fact-finding outcome or challenge the mother's narrative. In December 2023, HHJ Jones dismissed the father's applications for a change of residence and enforcement order, reduced M's contact to no order, and concluded that the court could do no more. The father appealed. The central issue was whether the children could properly remain subject to the false belief that they had been abused.

1. Appeal allowed. The parties agreed that the children had to be told the outcome of the fact-finding hearing and that the existing position could not continue.

2. The failure to challenge the mother's narrative, and the fact that the children had not been informed of the court's findings after two and a half years, had left them viewing their parents through a false account of serious sexual abuse. That state of affairs was significantly harmful to them.

3. The court accepted Dr Freedman's evidence that the children urgently needed to know the court's finding and that therapeutic work was required to unravel and challenge the narrative. The delay made that task substantially more difficult. Removal to a neutral setting remained a possible future step, depending on the progress of therapy and the children's reactions, but was not determined on this appeal.

4. Therapeutic Life Story Work International was directed to undertake ten sessions with the children, with a report to follow. The mother was ordered to ensure attendance, was prohibited from repeating the rejected allegations or making fresh allegations, and was expected to engage substantially in repairing the harm caused. The father was cautioned to proceed carefully and to follow professional advice so that contact did not become burdensome for the children.

5. Further directions were made concerning the Guardian, future judicial allocation and a later hearing. The existing contact arrangements were maintained, with a modest increase in the boys' time with their father and encouragement for M to meet him in a manner acceptable to her.

• Family Court, HHJ Jones: Following the December 2023 hearing, dismissed applications for a change of residence and enforcement order, reduced M's contact to no order, and concluded that the court could do no more.
• High Court (Family Division): Permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed. The lower court's orders were replaced by agreed orders requiring therapeutic intervention, disclosure of the fact-finding outcome to the children, safeguards concerning allegations, and further review.