Natasha Miller in M v F [2024] EWFC 310 (B)
4th Feb 2025 | Cases
Natasha Miller, instructed by Brethertons, acted for the First Respondent Father in M v F [2024] EWFC 310 (B). This case concerned allegations of inappropriate sexual touching, allegedly made by the subject child, A, to the mother, M. M pursued these allegations at a fact-finding hearing which took place over three days. The father, F, in turn sought a finding that M had frustrated him spending time with A without reasonable excuse. Her Honour Judge Owens raised considerable concerns about M’s oral evidence.
Ultimately the Court heard extensive evidence from both parties and made findings as follows:
- F did not touch A in any way that was inappropriate and sexual in nature.
- F did not tell A not to tell anyone about inappropriate, sexual touching and that this was a “special little game”.
- A has said that he does not feel safe spending time with F, but this is not as a result of anything F has done, rather this arises from M’s actions in seeking to encourage A to make allegations against F and in failing to protect A from her strong emotions and negative views of F.
- M has also failed to protect A from exposure to adult concerns and issues, including telling him about the court proceedings and her fears about risk to both A and B from F if F ‘wins’ this case.
- In seeking to encourage A to make allegations against F, exposing him to her strong emotions and negative views about F, and failing to protect A from exposure to adult concerns and issues, she has inappropriately disrupted A’s relationship with his father. To this extent F’s allegation that M has frustrated contact is therefore proved.
- What M has done has caused A emotional harm and risks his sense of identity given the disruption in his relationship with his father. If M is not able to properly support A and B (a younger child of the parents) having a relationship with F, she is risking them suffering significant harm in future.
This judgment is a clear reminder that the Court is not rigidly bound to adhere to a schedule of findings, especially since issues may emerge in oral evidence which were not hitherto identified (Re G&B [2009] 1 FLR 1145). Here HHJ Owens went beyond the findings sought by F in respect of contact being frustrated. It also serves as a timely reminder that both child protection specialists and lay parties must refrain from using the word ‘disclosure’ because it implies that what is alleged is true. The preferred term, prior to any finding of fact, is therefore ‘allegation’ [8].
