Our work covers all areas of family law, with particular expertise in the following areas:
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:
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].