Cambridge Family Law Practice

A Family Court Judge gave insufficient reasons for findings of abuse made against a teenager and his mother, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

The case concerned ‘findings of fact’ made against a 19-year-old, referred to as ‘S’, and his mother earlier this year, in care proceedings brought by their local authority. A ‘finding of fact’ is made in a family or other civil court to determine whether – on the balance of probability – certain events did or didn’t occur.

The care proceedings concerned the teenager’s four younger siblings, aged 16, 14, ten and five. Sitting in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Baker explained:

“The principal issue arising on the appeals is… the adequacy of the reasons given by the judge for the serious findings he made against S and his mother.”

The father of all five children supported the appeal. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and is dependent on his wife for day-to-day care.

Social workers had worked with the family for as long as 15 years by the time of the hearing. For much of that time they have struggled with housing and finances, as well as their immigration status in the UK. At one point, S and his elder sister T were placed in foster care because the mother needed treatment in hospital.

Lord Justice Baker noted:

“Between July 2017 and March 2018, the children were the subject of child protection plans under the category of emotional harm. At that stage, the local authority had concerns about the mother’s anxiety, her ability to prioritise the children’s needs, and the speech and language development of [her ten-and 14 year-old daughters], both of whom were described by [Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services] as selectively mute.”

By 2020, T (now 16) was associating with peers at risk of child sexual exploitation. In February the following year, S summoned the Police to the family’s home. There, said the Judge,

“…T made allegations that her brother had sexually abused her on occasions when she was aged 11 and 12. She further alleged that her mother had known about the abuse and done nothing to protect her.”

She repeated these allegations in a formal interview, also making further allegations of assault against her mother. Both S and his mother denied these claims, with the mother raising:

“…concerns about T’s behaviour and the young persons with whom she was associating at school which had led to a deterioration in her behaviour and use of illegal substances.”

T was placed under an interim (temporary) care order, moving between foster carers and children’s homes. Her mental health deteriorated dramatically and she took to self-harming during this period, as well as repeatedly running away back to her family.

The Court of Appeal judgement continues:

“At several points during the proceedings, T retracted the allegations against S and her mother, then repeated them, then retracted them again. All professionals accept that her presentation is very complex and extremely worrying. A particular practical concern is that she will reach the age of 17 in the next three months at which point she will be beyond the age at which a care order can be made.”

Meanwhile, S moved out. The local authority applied for ‘findings of fact’ that T had been sexually abused by her brother and the mother had known about but chosen to do nothing, while being coercive and violent towards her daughter.

The hearing ran into multiple delays but oral and written evidence was gradually collected over the second half of 2022. But then the 14-year-old daughter suddenly made similar allegations about S and the judgement was delayed while these were investigated. It was eventually decided not to pursue any further findings against S. The teen has since been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

In March this year, most of the findings sought by the local authority against S and his mother were made. Not long afterwards, they were granted permission to appeal the findings.

At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Baker agreed with the appellants that the Judge at the earlier hearing should have issued a written judgement instead of an oral one.

“Plainly the judge was short of time on [the day of the hearing]. But the course he took of delivering what he intended to be a relatively short overview judgment, with a view to the parties asking for further reasons if they so chose, is plainly irregular.”

He continued:

“I agree with the appellants’ submissions that the omissions from the judgment are extensive and significant, in particular the absence of any analysis of the …interview [with T], or any assessment of credibility and reliability, or any detailed analysis of the appellants’ evidence…or any real consideration of the detailed submissions made on behalf of the parties. There was some analysis of the reliability of T’s allegations, but given the omissions in the judgment it was inevitably incomplete. The analysis of the evidence was manifestly insufficient, with crucial aspects of it not mentioned at all, and the judge’s explanation for his findings was perfunctory…Anyone reading the judgment…would have no idea how the judge…reached his conclusions on the very serious – life-changing – allegations.’

A full rehearing of the case could be harmful to the welfare of the children and family as a whole, the Lord Justice concluded – therefore, only the most pressing issues should be reconsidered by the lower courts.

“I would therefore propose that the proceedings be remitted to the Designated Family Judge for Central London to be listed for an urgent issues resolution hearing. I hope that all issues could be agreed without any need for a re-hearing which, as all parties agree, would be likely to cause further harm to this already very damaged family.”

Simon Bethel, one of the partners here at Cambridge Family Law Practice comments: “The is an extremely sad case with many complex issues. The difficulties within this family go far beyond their dealings with the family court, but the need for this appeal, and the resulting additional legal steps that must now be taken, will drag matters out even further, undoubtedly causing additional stress and potentially re-trauma. That said, it is important when such significant allegations are made that they are dealt with thoroughly and that a judge’s findings are clear and justified.”

Read the full ruling here.