recounts the Appellant’s long history of work in the charitable and caring sectors
recounts the Appellant’s long history of work in the charitable and caring sectors;
describes the breakdown of her marriage to D’s father stating that, following their breakup, her three children reported his physical abuse during overnight stays and that he tried to drive over her in a vehicle. However, the Appellant decided not to involve the police to “spare the children from further emotional damage”;
states that, when D was 11, she reported being shouted at when staying with her father and that she wished to return home. At this time, “[D’s] behaviour became noticeably different. She became violent, angry and abusive towards both myself and her brothers”. D told the Appellant that she felt her brothers were more loved than her;
describes how, having sought assistance from her local authority, D was advised that she could use restraining techniques and “I was shown how to apply appropriate restraint techniques to cause minimal harm to [D]”;
states that D’s behaviour deteriorated further in 2015, and an urgent referral was made to CAMHS, but D’s father refused to become involved and “left me to deal with [D’s] extreme and volatile behaviour”. At this time, D refused to stay with her father and the Appellant had to plead with him not to bring family proceedings (presumably contact proceedings) because of the trauma that would cause D;
records that, in 2016, following an argument D left the Appellant’s home and went to live with her father for 17 months;
states that the allegation of sexual abuse is “categorically denied” and describes the impact on the Appellant of D’s allegations. The Appellant’s statement does not elaborate on her denial save to state that “despite the allegations made against me, I would happily have my daughter back living with me at home and would provide her with any and all support she required”;
disputes the findings relied on by the DBS in concluding that her behaviour was manipulative and controlling. We have of course read the entire statement but there is no need to describe these parts of it here.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to DISMISS the appeal
- D's allegation that she was sexually abused by her mother (the Appellant)
- DBS’ decision-making
- Grounds of appeal
- Additional documentary evidence
- Legal framework
- Examination-in-chief
- The Appellant’s witness statement
- recounts the Appellant’s long history of work in the charitable and caring sectors
- Appellant’s cross-examination
- when D reached puberty in 2014/15 she ‘shut down’ and became very angry
- she denied ever having said that she did not want D to live with her
- the Appellant was taken to the transcripts of D’s ABE interviews. She was asked about D’s statement that the Appellant would be present in the bathroom when D took a bath or shower. The Appellant said
- Re-examination
- Arguments
- The Appellant
- Conclusions
- D’s disclosure of sexual abuse
- multiple sources of evidence showed D’s extreme reluctance to have any contact, even indirect contact, with her mother
- Working Together to Safeguard Children: 2023 Statutory Guidance (HM Gov, 2023) includes advice for practitioners on possible indicators of abuse short of a direct allegation of abuse. These include “c
- Learning for the Future: Final Analysis of Serious Case Reviews , 2017 to 2019 (DfE, 2022) refers to how difficult it is for children to talk about abuse (5.4.2), that disclosure of abuse often follow
- Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (Ministry of Justice, 2022) notes that children who have experienced a traumatic event may need breaks when being interviewed about those events (2.235)
- the Appellant’s skeleton argument submits that the allegations were fabricated by D and her ex-husband
- Ground 1 – conclusions
- Ground 2 – conclusions
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 401 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)