F v M

In a fact-finding application concerning alleged sexual abuse and parental alienation, allegations must be proved on the balance of probabilities by admissible evidence. The court must assess inherent probabilities and the wide canvas of evidence, while avoiding suspicion and speculation. A lie does not establish that a witness has lied about everything. Where alienating behaviour is alleged, the court must establish: the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal to engage with a parent; that it is not justified by that parent’s conduct or another factor; and behaviour by the other parent which caused or contributed to that response. Protective behaviour is not alienating where it is justified by a real risk of abuse. A genuinely held but unjustified belief in abuse does not make resulting conduct protective.

The father applied under art 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention for arrangements securing effective access to D, aged eight. D had been habitually resident in the jurisdiction when the application was made and was living in England with his mother, who was seeking asylum. The father lived in the USA.

The mother alleged that the father was involved with the Lodge or Illuminati and that D had suffered sexual abuse by a third party while in the father’s care. The father denied those allegations and alleged that the mother had engaged in alienating behaviour and caused D emotional and psychological harm. The central issues were whether the alleged abuse occurred, whether it occurred while D was in the father’s care, and whether the mother’s conduct met the relevant definition of alienating behaviour.

1. Fact-finding principles. Each asserted fact had to be proved by the party asserting it on the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of an allegation or its consequences did not alter that standard. The court was required to consider inherent probabilities and the admissible evidence viewed on the wide canvas, but could not base findings on suspicion or speculation. Credibility and reliability were central where the principal evidence came from the parents (paras [22]-[27]).
2. Lies and abuse allegations. Applying R v Lucas [1982] QB 720, a lie could corroborate an allegation only where it was deliberate, material, motivated by a realisation of guilt and fear of the truth, and clearly proved by evidence independent of the witness requiring corroboration. A lie on one matter did not mean that the witness had lied about everything (para [28]). The court also applied the caution required in private-law domestic-abuse fact-finding cases under Re B-B (Domestic Abuse: Fact Finding) [2022] 2 FLR 725 and the principles concerning children’s memories and suggestibility in Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27, including the need for great care in obtaining and evaluating a child’s account (paras [29]-[32]).
3. Alleged sexual abuse. The court had to decide separately whether sexual abuse occurred and, if so, in whose care it occurred. The evidence was tenuous, weak and inconsistent. The mother’s leading questioning of D and the absence of reliable contemporaneous or investigative evidence meant that the allegation was not proved. The court found that nothing untoward, sexual or otherwise, had occurred during the relevant weekend (paras [33], [73], [104]-[110]).
4. Alienating behaviour. The three necessary elements were established: D was reluctant to engage with his father; that reluctance was not caused by the father’s conduct or another justified factor; and the mother’s behaviour had directly or indirectly caused it. The mother’s conduct was not protective because her belief in abuse, though honestly held, was wrong and unjustified (paras [111]-[116]). Her pursuit of unsupported allegations, obstruction of contact, repeated references to sexual abuse, derogatory statements about the father, and wrongful removal of D were proved and amounted to alienating behaviour or emotional and psychological harm. Withholding information and resisting safeguarding checks was proved in substance but did not itself meet the definition because D’s awareness or resulting impact was not established (paras [117]-[158]).
5. Outcome. The mother’s allegations were not proved. The father’s allegations of alienating behaviour and exposure of D to emotional and psychological harm were made out (para [159]).