The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to DISMISS the appeal
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to DISMISS the appeal.
The decisions of the Disclosure and Barring Service (ref. 00929482397) to include the Appellant on the list of persons barred from working with children, and the list of persons barred from working with children, maintained under the Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, involved neither an error of fact nor of law. Under section 4(5) of the 2006 Act, the Upper Tribunal CONFIRMS the DBS’ decisions.
ORDER UNDER RULE 14 of the TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2018
Under rule 14(1)(b) of the 2018 Rules, the Upper Tribunal makes an order prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellant’s daughter (referred to in these reasons as ‘D’), or to identify the Appellant (referred to as MM), as persons connected to these proceedings.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Brief chronology
The Appellant’s daughter, whom we refer to as ‘D in these reasons’, was born in 2003. D’s parents separated in 2009 and subsequently divorced. D remained living with her mother, the Appellant. Both parties agree that in 2014, when D was aged about 11, her behaviour deteriorated. In June or July 2015, D left her mother’s home and lived with her father for 17 months before returning to reside with her mother. In April 2017, a few weeks after returning to live with her mother, D was admitted, on a voluntary basis, to a secure mental health facility. D resisted returning to live with her mother and was instead placed in foster care. This was a voluntary placement, under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, rather than under a care order. D remained in foster care and did not return to either her mother’s or father’s care.
- 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)