H (Children) (Findings of Fact), Re

In fact-finding proceedings involving allegations of child abuse, the court must evaluate each allegation rigorously and guard against a totalising inference that, because some allegation must have occurred, all or several allegations are proved. The evidence should be organised chronologically where that assists a coherent assessment of how accounts developed, including the circumstances in which they were obtained and any earlier false allegations. Defective compliance with Achieving Best Evidence guidance, repeated or leading questioning, unreliable recording, and an alleged retraction require careful analysis. A finding based on a vulnerable child’s account must explain why the account is reliable and how particular detail supports it. Findings must not be attributed to sexual abuse or inappropriate family boundaries without an adequate evidential basis.

Public law care proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 concerned H and R. After an eight-day fact-finding hearing, Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Family Court, made findings against the children’s parents and their maternal uncle, CH.

CH and the mother appealed. The father and Children’s Guardian supported the appeals; the local authority opposed them. The central issues were whether the judge had adequately analysed H’s allegations, the effect of serious failures in the investigation and recording of evidence, the finding that CH had sexually abused H, related findings, and a disputed identification of R with the maternal grandmother.

1. The appeals were allowed. Finding 3, that CH had sexually abused H at a Halloween party, was set aside. Findings 5, 8 and 9 also fell away because they depended materially on finding 3. Findings 4, 7 and 10 stood, subject to the qualification to finding 7 identified by the court.
2. In a case involving multiple allegations, the judge must guard against a totalising approach: the fact that some event may have occurred cannot substitute for proof of each allegation. Bailey [1924] 2 KB 300 and Re P [2019] EWFC 27 provided apt guidance against deriving a satisfactory allegation from a mass of unsatisfactory accusations.
3. A chronological analysis may be essential. The judge should identify the relevant chapters of time, the first account of abuse, the circumstances in which each account arose, its relationship to known false allegations, and how recipients treated it. The judgment below was structured principally by witnesses and allegations and did not provide the necessary coherent analysis.
4. The judge failed adequately to analyse the effect of the defective ABE interviews and the foster mother’s questioning and recording. He gave insufficient explanation for treating the 21 April account as materially improved, overlooked that H had been asked to repeat the allegation, failed to address discrepancies between the foster mother’s and her daughter’s accounts, and did not examine H’s prompt statement that he had been joking.
5. The judge’s reasons for accepting H’s account relied on an unconvincing assessment of the alleged detail. The analysis did not sufficiently confront H’s history of serious false allegations, the implausibility of aspects of the account, or the adult prompts said to have elicited the grandmother’s response. The judge also failed to explain the conversion of H’s words into a finding of anal penetration or hand placement, particularly in the absence of medical evidence.
6. Finding 4 could stand as a finding of inappropriate and, in part, sexualised behaviour. The attribution of that behaviour to sexual abuse had to be removed with finding 3. The remaining attribution to inappropriate boundaries in the home was evidentially insecure and was set aside. The factual behaviour could nevertheless inform the welfare stage.
7. Finding 7 was essentially sound, based on evidence of continuing association and lack of frankness, but had to be understood against mixed messages about the risks posed by the maternal family. Finding 10 was a straightforward credibility dispute. Applying Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464, the appellate court could not interfere because the judge was not plainly wrong.
8. The Part IV application was remitted to the Designated Family Judge for Wolverhampton for urgent re-allocation, case management and consideration of whether any re-trial of the set-aside factual issues was necessary and proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeals from the Family Court at Birmingham were allowed. The challenged findings were dealt with as set out in the held section, and the Part IV application was remitted for urgent case management.
• Family Court at Birmingham: Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, delivered a reserved fact-finding judgment on 24 April 2025 in case WV23C50431.
• Court of Appeal: Baker LJ granted permission to appeal on 2 July 2025.