Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
AB & Ors v Leicestershire County Council [2026] EWHC 331 (KB) (17 February 2026)
The High Court considered limitation and liability claims arising from alleged child abuse at The Beeches children’s home, but held the claims time-barred and entered judgment for the defendant.
The court found, on the balance of probabilities and considering all evidence holistically, that the Father sexually abused A as alleged, supported by A's consistent communications, forensic DNA evidence indicating sexual activity, the Father's conduct and internet searches, and the lack of credible innocent explanation for the DNA findings.
Source excerpt
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father perpetrated physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, as well as coercive and controlling behaviour against the mother; the children were emotionally harmed and placed at risk of physical harm through exposure to domestic abuse; the father relied on falsified documentation regarding the mother’s mental health; the mother does not suffer from mental illness or lack capacity; the father’s allegations against the mother were not credible.
Source excerpt
On the balance of probabilities, the court found that the father (CD) sexually abused N and O as minors as alleged. Their accounts were consistent, credible, and emotionally compelling, with no evidence of collusion or motive to fabricate. Discrepancies in sleeping arrangements were not determinative given the passage of time. The mother (AB) did not fail to protect or collude in the abuse but failed to consider the allegations or the risk posed by the father, raising concerns about her ability to protect the children in future. Threshold under s31 Children Act 1989 is met for all children du…
Source excerpt
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that F engaged in grooming and sexually abusive behaviour towards P, Q, X, and Y, exploiting his position of trust and normalising exposure and sexual contact. The court also found that F was physically, emotionally, and controlling abusive towards M and the children. The court rejected F's denials and assertions of fabrication, finding the witnesses for the applicant credible and reliable, and F and his supporting witnesses unreliable. The similarity between the two sets of allegations was attributed to F's pattern of behaviour, not fabricati…
Source excerpt
TS v AS & Ors [2025] EWHC 3169 (Fam) (05 December 2025)
The High Court made fact-finding findings that the father committed domestic, sexual, and coercive abuse, causing emotional harm to the children, and rejected his allegations against the mother.
The court found D and E's allegations of sexual and physical abuse by F and M to be credible and true, rejecting the respondents' conspiracy theory and alternative explanations. F sexually abused D and E by oral and digital penetration and attempted penile penetration. Both F and M were physically abusive towards D and E. M prioritised her relationship with F over her children, resulting in C's deprivation of sibling contact. The local authority did not prove, on balance of probabilities, that M was complicit in sexual abuse.
Source excerpt
A Local Authority v Mother & Ors [2025] EWFC 415 (B) (06 November 2025)
In care proceedings, the court found that B suffered significant harm, including sexual abuse by C, and that the mother failed to protect her and misled professionals.
The threshold for care orders was crossed due to proven sexual abuse by the father, neglect, emotional and physical harm by both parents; neither parent is capable of safeguarding the children, and final care orders are necessary and proportionate to protect them from further harm.
Source excerpt
The threshold for a care order is met as C is beyond parental control and at risk of significant harm. The Local Authority’s plan for her placement, with deprivation of liberty safeguards, is necessary and proportionate to protect her welfare. A six-month deprivation of liberty order is justified, balancing her rights under Article 5 ECHR with the need for protection from grave harm. The restrictions imposed are the minimum necessary and are justified by the evidence of risk and C’s vulnerability.
Source excerpt
Explore more
