Care cases involving multiple allegations

In H (Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993, proceedings were issued in November 2023 concerning two children, H and R, aged five and four, under Part IV Children Act 1989. Allegations central to this case included neglect, exposure to domestic abuse, and sexual abuse by their maternal uncle, CH. 

At first instance, Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge found that CH sexually abused H during a Halloween party in 2023, making related findings against the parents. CH, as an intervenor, and the mother appealed, challenging the safety of several findings. 

Issues on Appeal

Grounds of Appeal put forward by CH:

1. There was insufficient analysis of the chronological development of the allegations and lack of a holistic evidential evaluation;
2. There was insufficient analysis of the breaches of ABE guidance for H’s account on 21 April 2024
3. There was insufficient analysis of the allegations of sexual abuse and consequential perpetration. (1)

The mother proposed two additional grounds of appeal:

1. The Judge was wrong to find that H was with CH at the Halloween party in 2023 where the sexual abuse, found as a matter of fact, occurred.
2. The Judge was wrong to find there was contact between R and the maternal grandmother on 27 Oct 2023. (2)

Counsel for CH and the mother argued that there was a lack of rigorous judicial analysis on the evidence amounting to judicial error; further stating the judicial analysis was flawed as the judge did not take sufficient account of the defective professional assessments from social workers and the police.

Lord Justice Baker, in granting permission to appeal, noted the case’s complexity. The Judge faced serious but unreliable child abuse allegations, investigated through flawed methods for the court to unravel. The Judge acknowledge that none of the professionals had followed standard practice, which meant important evidence was excluded and opportunities to establish the truth were lost.(3)

Judgment

Lord Justice Cobb found there were clear and obvious deficits in the trial Judge’s analysis of the evidence leading to the finding of sexual abuse of H by CH.(4) Cobb LJ found that the finding needed to be set aside. The appeal court identified six flaws with the trial Judge’s approach:

1. The Judge referred to CH’s childhood sexual abuse as “relevant background”, however; failed to explain its probative value or how it was considered. (5)
2. The Judge relied on the foster mother’s 21 April 2024 notes despite finding her record-keeping to be “defective”. As a result, the Judge’s reasoning was unconvincing and inconsistent in treating this account later as more reliable. (6) The foster mother improperly questioned H repeatedly, including in front of her adult daughter and husband, asking H to repeat his account, contrary to ABE guidance. The Judge overlooked this and failed to resolve discrepancies between the foster mother’s and her daughter’s account of the sexual abuse.(7)
3. The Judge failed to consider H’s history of consistently inaccurate reporting and false allegations, giving improper reasoning for accepting his 21 April 2024 account. The Judge stated H provided considerable “detail” relating to the Halloween party in 2023, which is inconsistent with the reality of H’s false allegations. (8) 
4. The Judge placed weight on photographic evidence from Halloween 2023 that did not, as a matter of fact, corroborate the allegation or link H, CH, or the location. The photographs did not connect the children to their Halloween costumes at the home of the maternal grandmother, or connected them to CH. As a result, Cobb LJ found it was difficult to see why the Judge found the mother’s answers to be ‘evasive’ and ‘vague’ in confirming the events of Halloween 2023, that is, she was not at the maternal grandparent’s home, or with CH, with or without the children. (9)
5. The Judge did not consider H’s immediate retraction of the allegation concerning CH and did not analyse the inconsistencies in H’s varying descriptions of the abuse, whilst making a serious finding without appropriate evidential support. (10)
6. The Judge failed to analyse the inconsistencies in H’s five different accounts of abuse on Halloween 2023 and gave no reasoning for converting H’s words into a more serious finding of anal penetration or touching. With no medical evidence, such a grave conclusion required proper explanation, which was absent. (11)

Together, these flaws lead the Court of Appeal to conclude that the finding of sexual abuse perpetrated by H (finding 3), could not safely stand.

Additionally, finding 5 was set aside as a it relied upon finding 3 in its wording of “…as a result of the sexual abuse that H has suffered”. The Judge’s attribution of H’s sexualised behaviour to “inappropriate boundaries in the home” lacked evidential support, as bad language or family history could not explain it alone.

Conclusion

Cobb LJ stressed that in cases involving multiple allegations, judges must avoid assuming that “something must have happened,” especially where a child shows concerning behaviour. Counsel referred to Bailey [1924] (13) and Re P [2019] (14), where it was emphasised that a series of weak or unsatisfactory accusations cannot cumulatively create a sound case, and that courts must avoid the “no smoke without fire” approach. This guidance was considered particularly relevant here. (15)

Lisa Edmunds is Head of Chambers at Unit Chambers. This article first appeared on the set’s website.

References

(1) Para. 57, Cobb LJ

(2) Para. 58, Cobb LJ

(3) Para. 62, Cobb LJ

(4) Para. 67, Cobb LJ

(5) Para. 68, Cobb LJ

(6) Para. 69, Cobb LJ

(7) Para. 71, Cobb LJ

(8) Para. 72, Cobb LJ

(9) Para. 74, Cobb LJ

(10) Para. 75, Cobb LJ

(11) Para. 76, Cobb LJ

(12) Para. 79, Cobb LJ

(13) 2 KB 300

(14)  EWFC 27

(15) Para. 65, Cobb LJ

Law is correct as of 27th October 2025. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational purposes. Readers are respectfully reminded that it is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. No liability is accepted for any error or omission contained herein.