[2024] UKUT 401 (AAC)

the Appellant’s skeleton argument submits that the allegations were fabricated by D and her ex-husband;

in oral submissions, the Appellant’s counsel suggested that the allegations may have been elicited by the suggestiveness of D’s foster carer, and that ‘climate of suggestiveness’ was carried over to the ABE interviews.

we have tried, without success, to identify any possible rationale for the argument that D made false allegations against the Appellant because she is the only person never to have rejected D. The argument seems to assume that D set out to test the Appellant’s commitment to her by making up an allegation of sexual abuse in order to see if that commitment withstood D doing something horrendous (fabricating sexual abuse) that would ordinarily rupture the relationship between parent and child. In our view, such behaviour is so aberrant as to be inherently unlikely. It becomes even more unlikely if considered alongside the evidence that D found the experience of making her disclosure extremely distressing. We think it is fanciful to suggest that D both devised a cruel plan to test her mother’s commitment and, in putting the plan into effect, simulated signs of extreme distress;

even if the Appellant correctly asserts that D was not given adequate help by statutory agencies, it makes no sense for D to have reacted to that by fabricating allegations of sexual abuse against her mother. If D knew that public bodies had failed her, why take that out on her mother? If D did not know that she had been let down by public bodies, and simply experienced levels of distress that would have been mitigated had public bodies done their jobs properly, why should that distress have manifested itself in the form of fabricated allegations of sexual abuse against D's mother? We cannot think of any plausible answer to these questions;

the argument that D was motivated by some misguided attempt to take revenge on her mother rests on the assumption that D hatched a cold-hearted plan to damage her mother. This assumes that the abuse allegation and the apparent associated distress, including at least one suicide attempt, were simulated by D. If D’s aim was revenge motivated by a history of poor relations between D and the Appellant, why did she not fabricate an allegation of even more serious sexual abuse? Regrettably, and without in any way wishing to diminish the significance of sexual abuse of the type described by D, many children experience far more severe sexual abuse than that described by D. And, again, this argument implausibly assumes that D was able to manufacture symptoms of extreme distress during the disclosure process;

the Appellant’s ex-husband’s police witness statement said that he “certainly didn’t know why” his daughter refused to be discharged from hospital into the Appellant’s care. Police records also state that, in a discussion with police officers in June 2019, the ex-husband “described how he was shocked to hear of how [D] had implicated her mother in a sexual offence matter and described he has not at any time witnessed anything that he thinks will be pertinent to the investigation”. If, as the Appellant alleges, the allegations were fabricated by her ex-husband, for what possible reason would he pass up the opportunity to implicate the Appellant? We cannot think of any;

in relation to the foster carer, the Appellant’s argument must rely on the foster carer’s witness statement evidence because there is no other evidence about the circumstances of D’s disclosure to the foster carer. However, in that statement the foster carer describes how, in response to D writing ‘s’ on her iPad, she first asked if she meant physical or emotional abuse. It was only once D responded negatively that the foster carer asked D if she meant sexual abuse. The argument that the ABE interviews were conducted in a ‘climate of suggestiveness’ is not supported by reference to any part of the transcript of either interview. We have read both transcripts with care but cannot identify this supposed ‘climate of suggestiveness’. It seems to us that both interviews were conducted properly in accordance with the ABE guidance that we referred to above in these reasons. Yes, D was very reluctant to speak about the nature of the allegations but that is not unusual in the case if children who report sexual abuse, especially at the hands of a family member. The way in which the police officers responded to D’s reluctance cannot fairly be described as suggestive and we see no obvious respect in which the ABE interviews departed from the ABE guidance.

D’s behaviour changed significantly, and for the worse, around the same time as she later alleged that she was being sexually abused by her mother. This is a recognised behavioural response to a child being sexually abused, especially where it is committed by a family member;

throughout her teenage years, D showed an extreme reluctance to have anything to do with her mother and when she did, even if the contact was indirect, this was often the prelude to self-harm. This is another recognised behavioural response to familial sexual abuse;

when D did return to live with her mother after spending 17 months residing with her father, it was because she felt that she was no longer welcome at her father’s home. We do not consider that this act showed that D felt safe in her mother’s care;

within a few weeks of returning to live with her mother, D inflicted significant self-harm and was admitted to a secure mental health facility;

D’s initial disclosure to her foster carer came only after she had lived with her for some time, and it had become her settled placement. Government guidance recognises that a child is often only able to disclose sexual abuse when she feels that she is in a place of safety and to a trusted adult. The manner of D’s disclosure was consistent with this;

the process of disclosure was very difficult for D and caused her significant distress. It was a drawn-out process engaged with by D only with obvious reluctance. This was more consistent with D describing actual sexual abuse than fabricated abuse;

the manner in which D described sexual abuse during her ABE interviews showed an inability to verbalise the most intimate aspects of abuse. She only described the most intimate details once interviewed with the assistance of a registered intermediary. The way in which D described sexual abuse in her ABE interviews was more consistent with a child describing actual sexual abuse than fabricated.