Re C

Re C

The trial judge was entitled to accept the child's evidence and draw adverse inferences from the father's failure to attend and give evidence, as the investigation's departures from the ABE Guidance were not so significant as to undermine the reliability of the child's allegations, and the father's explanation for non-attendance was not credible.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant Father; First Respondent: Local Authority; Second Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal Family Law (care Proceedings) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearing, Adverse Inference, Child Evidence, Sexual Abuse Allegations, Application of ABE Guidance
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearing Adverse Inference Child Evidence Sexual Abuse Allegations Application of ABE Guidance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant Father

Appellant

Local Authority

First Respondent

Mother

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Family Law (care Proceedings) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in accepting the child's evidence given alleged flaws in the ABE interview process
  2. 2 Whether the judge was wrong to draw adverse inferences from the father's failure to attend and give evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to accept the child's evidence and draw adverse inferences from the father's failure to attend and give evidence, as the investigation's departures from the ABE Guidance were not so significant as to undermine the reliability of the child's allegations, and the father's explanation for non-attendance was not credible.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Findings of the trial judge upheld
  • No interference with the trial judge's fact-finding