H (Children) (Findings of Fact)

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13 November 2023, public law care proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 were initiated concerning two children, a boy aged 5 and his younger sister aged 4. Following significant delays, a fact-finding hearing was held in March 2025 before Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Family Court. The hearing lasted eight court days, and on 24 April 2025, the Judge delivered a reserved judgment containing adverse factual findings against the children’s parents and the maternal uncle, an intervenor in the proceedings.

The maternal uncle and the mother appealed several factual findings. These appeals were supported by the father and the Children’s Guardian, but opposed by the local authority, the applicant for the care order. Permission to appeal was granted on 2 July 2025. The proceedings had already extended significantly beyond the statutory timeframe, with the final welfare hearing postponed to October 2025. The appellate court proposed allowing the appeal, setting aside certain findings, and remitting the case for reallocation and further case management with an emphasis on concluding the proceedings before their second anniversary.

The case involved a complex family history, including prior care proceedings concluding in 2017 where serious sexual abuse was found to have occurred within the maternal family. Both the mother and maternal uncle were vulnerable adults with cognitive and psychological difficulties. The children were removed into foster care in November 2023 after concerns of significant harm, including exposure to parental conflict, parental mental health issues, and physical chastisement by the father. The child complainant made multiple allegations of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse implicating various individuals, including family members and professionals. The fact-finding hearing considered these allegations alongside evidence from interviews, social workers, and foster carers, amidst concerns about the reliability of evidence and investigative practices.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Judge erred in his analysis and evaluation of evidence leading to the factual findings of sexual abuse by the maternal uncle at a Halloween party in 2023.
2. Whether the Judge properly considered breaches of the Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) guidance in relation to interviews with the child complainant.
3. Whether the Judge’s findings regarding contact between the children and maternal family members, including the maternal grandmother, were supported by sufficient evidence.
4. Whether the cumulative findings about sexualised behaviour displayed by the child and its attribution to abuse or family environment were justified.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The Judge failed to conduct a sufficiently rigorous and holistic analysis of the evidence, particularly regarding the chronological development of allegations.
• The Judge inadequately addressed breaches of ABE guidance affecting the reliability of the child’s account from 21 April 2024.
• The Judge erred in finding that the child was sexually abused by the maternal uncle at the Halloween party in 2023, citing flawed and contaminated evidence.
• The evidence supporting the finding of contact between the children and the maternal grandmother on 27 October 2023 was compelling and should have been accepted.
• If the key finding of abuse by the maternal uncle is set aside, several related findings must also be considered unsafe and set aside.

Respondent's Arguments

• The trial Judge had a particular advantage in assessing credibility having heard the witnesses over many days and was entitled to prefer the evidence as he did.
• There was no compelling reason to disturb the Judge’s findings given the extensive evidence considered.
• The Judge took care in his assessment despite some imperfect expression, and the findings should stand.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bailey [1924] 2 KB 300	Judicial caution in cases with numerous allegations to avoid logical fallacy and confusion of mind.	The court emphasized the need for exactness in determining guilt when faced with multiple, unsatisfactory accusations, warning against totalising approaches.
Re P [2019] EWFC 27	Warning against totalising approach and capitulation to suspicion in findings of fact in sexual abuse cases.	The court endorsed the principle that suspicion alone is insufficient, and findings must avoid being influenced by the volume of allegations rather than their merits.
Re S [2023] EWCA Civ 346	Advocated structuring judgments by chronological "chapters of time" for clarity in complex fact-finding cases.	The court suggested the trial Judge should have organized evidence chronologically to better analyse the development and reliability of allegations.
Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464	Standard for appellate interference with factual findings is whether the Judge was plainly wrong.	The court held it was not plainly wrong for the Judge to prefer the nursery worker’s evidence over the parents’ conflicting accounts.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a detailed review of the trial Judge’s findings and reasoning, identifying several significant flaws in the approach to key factual findings, particularly those concerning the maternal uncle’s alleged abuse of the child at the Halloween party in 2023. The court noted that the Judge referenced the uncle’s traumatic background but failed to explain how this was weighed in assessing the allegations, raising concerns about potential improper influence on the burden of proof.

The court scrutinized the reliability of the foster mother’s record-keeping and found inconsistencies and contradictions in her account and that of her daughter, which the Judge did not adequately address. The court emphasized the forensic dangers of the foster mother’s repeated questioning of the child, which breached ABE guidance and undermined the reliability of the evidence.

The court also highlighted the child’s documented history of making false allegations, which the Judge acknowledged but insufficiently accounted for in accepting the key allegation against the maternal uncle. The court found the Judge’s reliance on certain details in the child’s account unconvincing and insufficiently substantiated.

Further, the court found no photographic or other evidential support linking the child’s account to the maternal grandparents’ home at the relevant time. The Judge’s failure to analyze the child’s partial retraction of the allegation was another critical omission.

Regarding other challenged findings, the court found the Judge’s conclusions about the child’s sexualised behaviour to be acceptable, though it questioned the attribution of such behaviour to abuse or family boundaries without firmer evidential support.

The court upheld findings related to the parents’ lack of honesty about contact with the maternal family and the reliability of the nursery worker’s evidence about contact between the child and maternal grandmother, concluding these were properly supported by the evidence and within the Judge’s discretion.

Overall, the court concluded that the trial Judge’s analysis would have benefited from a more coherent, chronological approach to evidence evaluation, as advocated in Re S, to avoid compartmentalization and improve clarity.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to ALLOW THE APPEALS and set aside several specific findings of fact:

• Finding 3 (abuse by maternal uncle at Halloween 2023) was set aside.
• Finding 4 (child’s sexualised behaviour) was upheld.
• Finding 5 (attribution of behaviour to abuse) was set aside.
• Finding 7 (parents’ continued association with maternal family posing risk) was upheld, with qualifications.
• Findings 8 and 9 (related to maternal uncle’s contact and mother’s failure to protect) were set aside.
• Finding 10 (contact between child and maternal grandmother) was upheld.

The case was remitted to the Designated Family Judge for Wolverhampton for reallocation and urgent case management, with directions to consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to re-try the factual issues now set aside. The threshold for care proceedings remains met on other grounds. The court emphasized the need for all parties to expedite the conclusion of these proceedings, which have been unacceptably delayed.

No new precedent was established; the decision primarily affects the factual findings and case management in this particular matter.