Father v Mother & Anor [2025] EWFC 40 (07 February 2025)

Father v Mother & Anor [2025] EWFC 40 (07 February 2025)

The lower court's finding of sexual touching by the father was wrong because it was based on a misunderstanding of the evidence and failed to provide a clear, reasoned route from the acknowledged evidential problems to the conclusion reached. The judge did not adequately address the impact of repeated questioning on the child, inconsistencies in the evidence, or deficiencies in the investigations. Therefore, the finding cannot stand and the appeal is allowed.

Citation
[2025] EWFC 40
Parties
Appellant: Father; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: The Child (a child, by her 16.4 Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal Judgment After Fact Finding and Child Arrangements Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; lower court's findings and child arrangements order set aside; case remitted for fresh fact-finding hearing.
Legal Topics
Appeal, Fact Finding, Child Arrangements, Sexual Abuse Allegation, Children Act 1989
Family Law Appeal Fact Finding Child Arrangements Sexual Abuse Allegation Children Act 1989

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

First Respondent

The Child (a child, by her 16.4 Guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal Judgment After Fact Finding and Child Arrangements Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower court's finding of sexual touching by the father was wrong or unjust due to misunderstanding of evidence or procedural irregularity
  2. 2 Whether the child arrangements order based on that finding should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The lower court's finding of sexual touching by the father was wrong because it was based on a misunderstanding of the evidence and failed to provide a clear, reasoned route from the acknowledged evidential problems to the conclusion reached. The judge did not adequately address the impact of repeated questioning on the child, inconsistencies in the evidence, or deficiencies in the investigations. Therefore, the finding cannot stand and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; lower court's findings and child arrangements order set aside; case remitted for fresh fact-finding hearing.

Orders

  • The finding of sexual touching by the father is set aside.
  • The child arrangements order dated 5 February 2024 is set aside.