FAZ v MAZ (Private Law: Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Child) [2026] EWFC 131

[2026] EWFC 131

Case No ZE24P00994

IN THE FAMILY COURT

Venue SITTING AT THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE

Date 09/06/2026

Before

MR JUSTICE POOLE

FAZ

Applicant

(1) MAZ

(2) AZ (BY HER NYAS CASEWORKER)

Respondents

FAZ v MAZ (Private Law: Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Child)

Between

FAZClaimant

MAZ (Private Law: Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Child)Defendant

Hearing Hearing dates: 20 to 24 April 2026

Janet Bazley KC and Lucy Sprinz (instructed by Blandy and Blandy LLP) for the Applicant

Martha Holmes on Direct Access for the First Respondent

Jessica Lee (instructed by NYAS) for the Second Respondent

JUDGMENT

[1]When the court has to determine the truth of disputed allegations against a parent of sexual abuse of their child, the stakes are high. If the court finds proved allegations which are in fact untrue then that parent/child relationship is wrongly ended and an appalling stigma is unjustly attached to an innocent adult. If the court finds unproved allegations which are in fact true, then a child may be put in the care of their abuser and other children may be exposed to harm from that adult when they ought to have been protected.

[2]This case also demonstrates how, long before the court decides whether allegations of sexual abuse are proved or not proved, the fact that they have been made can have profound consequences. Here, some two years four months ago, the child with whom I am concerned, then aged eleven, made allegations that she had been sexually abused by her father. She had raised other concerns but those were the most serious allegations against him. She has had no contact with him, his partner, or her paternal grandmother for over two years. She has been receiving extensive therapy for complex post-traumatic stress disorder, in part on the basis of her having suffered sexual abuse perpetrated by her father. Her mother, with whom she lives, has supported the child to access and continue that therapy and to break off all relations with her father. Part way through this finding of fact hearing into those allegations of sexual abuse, the mother changed her position and no longer pursued the allegations. At that point in the hearing the mother had given her oral evidence and the father was part way through his. The father concluded his evidence and I indicated that findings of fact were for the court and that I would receive submissions and give this judgment. For the reasons given in the judgment I find that it has not been proved that the father is guilty of sexual abuse of his daughter. The deeply troubling outcome is that the prolonged cessation of all contact and the provision of therapy have been on a false premise. It is difficult to see how the damage caused can ever be fully repaired.

[3]The parties are MAZ and FAZ, respectively the mother and father of AZ, a girl now aged 14. She is their only child. The parties were in a relationship for eighteen years They married in 2008 and separated in appalling acrimony in 2015. FAZ was suicidal at the time and there was a deeply troubling incident at the end of the relationship. They are now divorced. FAZ has a new partner, GH, with whom he lives. They have not had any children. Child arrangements concerning AZ are subject to a consent order from September 2016 under which AZ was to live with her mother and spend defined time with her father.

[4]As a result of events set out later in this judgment, all contact between AZ and FAZ was stopped in late 2023. On 12 August 2024, FAZ applied to vary the Child Arrangements Order (“CAO”) to re-instate his relationship with AZ and for the instruction of a clinical psychologist to undertake a global psychological assessment of the family. On 7 November 2024, MAZ applied to vary the CAO to provide that there be no contact between FAZ and AZ and for a s91(14) order restricting the father from making further applications in relation to AZ during her minority. AZ was joined as a party to the applications and a Guardian appointed.

[5]In those applications MAZ put before the court allegations against FAZ of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of AZ. She was required to set those out in a schedule and once she had done so I decided at a case management hearing that only the sexual abuse allegations needed to be determined at a separate finding of fact hearing. There were three allegations under the heading “sexual abuse” : 5.1. FAZ had entered AZ’s bedroom and sniffed her underwear. 5.2. FAZ entered AZ’s bedroom, took off his clothes except for boxer shorts and got into her bed and placed his hand on her bottom. 5.3. FAZ placed his hand over AZ’s genitals [details redacted].

[6]At the outset of the fact finding hearing the mother withdrew the first allegation accepting that the father had been doing no more than sorting out laundry.

[7]I received three bundles of evidence in relation to the two remaining allegations including a disclosure bundle comprising documents disclosed from the police and the Local Authority, GP, hospitals and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (“CAMHS”), and a bundle from the previous proceeding between the parties that had concluded in 2016. I viewed body-worn camera footage recorded by the police on a visit to AZ at home with MAZ on 9 January 2024 and a recording of her police interview about the allegations of sexual abuse on 21 February 2024. I heard oral evidence from MAZ and FAZ.

[8]FAZ did not dispute that on occasion he had got into AZ’s bed at her invitation to comfort her and help her get off to sleep. He did not dispute that he had taken to removing clothing before doing so because(i) the room was often very warm and AZ liked the window closed;

(ii) he likes to keep cool;

(iii) he would sometimes fall asleep himself and wake up hot and sweaty if he had his clothes on. I find that he did not intentionally touch his daughter’s bottom in bed and that if he did touch her bottom with his hand, he did so when asleep. I find that the third allegation is not proved.

[9]The genesis and development of the allegations remains a matter of significant dispute. The father alleges that the mother has acted in bad faith and played a dishonest role in the making and pursuit of the allegations. The mother accepts that she made mistakes and that her own anxiety caused her to accept unquestioningly what AZ was saying to her about the father’s conduct, but she denies engaging in manipulation or engineering a rupture in the relationship between father and daughter.

[10]Given the reparative work which is now required for this highly intelligent but damaged family, it is important for AZ, her parents, and the professionals who work with them to have clear findings as to the allegations and how they have come about.

Background

[11]FAZ and MAZ met in 1997 whilst at a leading university. They began living together in 2001. MAZ’s mother died, in a violent suicide in late 2004, an event which has understandably had a significant impact on MAZ. She was admitted as a voluntary patient having experienced suicidal thoughts herself and was on suicide watch from December 2005 to January 2006.

[12]The parties married in 2008 and AZ was born in 2012. The parties separated in 2015 and, following events explored later in this judgment, MAZ terminated all contact between AZ and FAZ in May 2015 and again in July 2015. Children’s Services and the police were involved in relation to child safeguarding issues but they were ultimately satisfied that no further action was required. The parties reached agreement as to child arrangements and a consent order was made in September 2016 under which AZ lived with her mother and spent family time with her father on alternate weekends and half the school holidays.

[13]These arrangements subsisted for more than seven years. Notwithstanding considerable distrust, AZ’s parents made the child arrangements work. FAZ began a new and enduring relationship with GH who has enjoyed considerable success in the creative arts. She and AZ developed a close bond. The parties agreed to AZ spending additional time with her father, ostensibly for him to help her with her mathematics, every Monday and Friday evening during term time. MAZ had a successful professional career and was promoted in or around the autumn of 2023 to a new role which meant that she was expected to attend events outside normal hours and would be unable to spend as much time with AZ as usual in the run up to Christmas. Unusually for them, the parents jointly bought a Christmas present for AZ that year.

[14]AZ is a very bright young woman who was doing well at school, engaging in various activities including martial arts and swimming, and had close relationships within the wider family, including with her paternal grandmother and a paternal great aunt. She started secondary school in September 2023 and had some difficulties adjusting. She experienced some bullying. She was thinking about her sexuality. Her paternal great aunt died at about the same time which was very upsetting for her. MAZ’s new role at work marked another significant change. Then, a few days after a seemingly happy evening with her father and GH in early December 2023, AZ reported at school that she had suicidal thoughts and that she found her father to be “draining”. She did not want to spend time with him that Christmas as had been planned. She referred to some incidents over previous years which she said made her feel unsafe due to his behaviour. MAZ stopped all contact between AZ and FAZ. MAZ reports that AZ became dysregulated in her behaviour and extremely anxious around men. According to MAZ, on 6 and 7 January 2024 AZ told her that when staying with FAZ, he had entered her bed and touched her bottom. MAZ contacted the Multi-agency Safeguarding Hub (“MASH”). On 9 January 2024 AZ reported a panic attack at school. It was noted that she had borrowed books from the school library on domestic violence and child abuse. She reported to the school that her father had entered her bed and touched her bottom. That evening police officers visited her at home and spoke to her in the presence of MAZ.

[15]No-one asked FAZ about these allegations at that time. On 15 January, AZ was assessed by a mental health service who, MAZ says, told her that AZ was showing signs of trauma and possible post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). AZ was referred to CAMHS and assessed on 24 January 2024. AZ reported daily thoughts of suicide and that she would “rather kill myself” than see her father. On 25 January MAZ took AZ to A&E having found a note written by AZ in her phone and AZ having “confirmed that she attempted to climb out of a window to commit suicide”. CAMHS assessed her as in crisis. On 1 February 2024, the Local Authority’s child and family team recorded that AZ had “disclosed historical physical abuse and sexual abuse from her father that has been happening since she was 7 years.” On 26 February 2024, AZ reported at school that she was “afraid of all men in the school”. AZ gave a police interview on 21 February 2024 during which she not only repeated the allegation that FAZ had touched her bottom, over her pyjamas, on some four occasions during September to November 2023 but that on two occasions his fingers had touched around her genitals, over her pyjamas.

[16]On 29 February 2024, FAZ was interviewed by police regarding the sexual assault allegations. He gave a prepared statement but made no comment in relation to all follow up questions. On 4 July 2024, the police decided to take no further action.

[17]By November 2024, CAMHS were treating AZ for complex PTSD symptoms. In these proceedings MAZ invited the court to strike out the father’s application and resisted disclosure relating to AZ’s allegations and treatment on the basis that it could endanger her life if she knew her father had seen such documentation. AZ has had no contact, direct or indirect, with her father since 8 December 2023.

[18]The mother’s allegations, set out above, arise from what she says AZ has told her, and from what AZ is known to have told the police and children’s services. Given the circumstances in which AZ made her allegations to the authorities and the court’s findings on the allegations, questions inevitably arise as to how and why the allegations came to be made. In advance of the hearing there were no allegations by the father for me to determine. Although allegations were set out in written closing submissions, MAZ was not on notice of them prior to the hearing. However, unavoidably I have to consider the mother’s role in the genesis and pursuit of the unproven allegations she has put before this court. The Legal Framework Findings of Fact

The Legal Framework

[19]Judgments including those of Baker J in A Local Authority v(1) Mother

(2) Father

(3) L & M (Children, by their Children's Guardian)

[2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)

, Peter Jackson J in Re BR (Proof of Fact)

[2015] EWFC 41

, and MacDonald J in in Re A Local Authority v W and others

[2020] EWFC 68

firmly establish the principles and approaches should be applied to a finding of fact exercise. Adapting those to a private law fact finding exercise, the principles are: 19.1. The burden of proof lies on the person who brings the proceedings and identifies the findings they invite the court to make. There is no obligation on a respondent to provide or prove an alternative explanation. 19.2. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, Re B

[2008] UKHL 35

. If the standard is met, the fact is proved. If it is not met, the fact is not proved. The law operates a binary system in this respect. 19.3. There is no burden on a parent to produce an alternative explanation and where an alternative explanation for an injury or course of conduct is offered, its rejection by the court does not establish the applicant's case. 19.4. The inherent probability or improbability of an event should be weighed when deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred but regard to inherent probabilities does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue, the standard of proof required is higher. 19.5. Findings of fact must be based on evidence not suspicion or speculation - Munby LJ in Re A (A child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation)

[2011] EWCA Civ 12

. 19.6. The court must take into account all the evidence and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. Evidence cannot be “evaluated and assessed in separate compartments”: per Butler-Sloss P in Re T

[2004] EWCA Civ 558

[2004] 2 FLR 838

at paragraph 33. 19.7. The opinions of medical experts need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence: see In A County Council v KD & L

[2005] EWHC 144

Fam at paragraphs 39 to 44. As observed by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss President in Re U, Re B

[2004] EWCA Civ 567

, "The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today's medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research may throw a light into corners that are at present dark". 19.8. It is not uncommon for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for various reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress and the fact that the witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything: see R v Lucas

[1981] QB 720

. In the recent Court of Appeal judgment in A, B, and C (Children)

[2021] EWCA 451

, Macur LJ advised at [57], "I venture to suggest that it would be good practice when the tribunal is invited to proceed on the basis, or itself determines, that such a direction is called for, to seek Counsel's submissions to identify: (i) the deliberate lie(s) upon which they seek to rely; (ii) the significant issue to which it/they relate(s), and (iii) on what basis it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt. The principles of the direction will remain the same, but they must be tailored to the facts and circumstances of the witness before the court." 19.9. Similar caution should be exercised in relation to a respondent giving unsatisfactory explanations or failing to give any explanation for the allegations made against them - the fact that they are unsatisfactory or missing may not be probative of the truth of the allegations or of the culpability of the respondent. 19.10. In Lancashire County Council v M and F

[2014] EWHC 3

Peter Jackson J made the following observations about assessing credibility which apply equally to this case as they do to cases of serious physical injury to or death of a child:

"… in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record keeping or recollection of the person hearing or relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural - a process that might inelegantly be described as "story-creep" may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith." 19.11. In Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 at [11] and [12], Macur LJ cautioned that: "

Any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so".

Allegations of Sexual Abuse Against Children

[20]MacDonald J conducted a wide-ranging survey of the law and practice in cases of alleged sexual abuse in Re P

[2019] EWFC 27

. At para. 577 MacDonald J summarised some key points about children’s evidence in such cases:

“i) Children, and especially young children, are suggestible. ii) Memory is prone to error and easily influenced by the environment in which recall is invited. iii) Memories can be confabulated from imagined experiences, it is possible to induce false memories and children can speak sincerely and emotionally about events that did not in fact occur. iv) Allegations made by children may emerge in a piecemeal fashion, with children often not reporting events in a linear history, reporting them in a partial way and revisiting topics. v) The wider circumstances of the child’s life may influence, explain or colour what the child is saying. vi) Factors affecting when a child says something will include their capacity to understand their world and their role within it, requiring caution when interpreting children’s references to behaviour or parts of the body through the prism of adult learning or reading. vii) Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence by leading or otherwise suggestive questions, repetition, pressure, threats, negative stereotyping and encouragement, reward or praise. viii) Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence as the result of bias or preconceived ideas on the part of the interlocutor. ix) Accounts given by children are susceptible to contamination by the statements of others, which contamination may influence a child’s responses. x) Children may embellish or overlay a general theme with apparently convincing detail which can appear highly credible and be very difficult to detect, even for those who are experienced in dealing with children. xi) Delay between an event recounted and the allegation made with respect to that event may influence the accuracy of the account given. xii) Within this context, the way, and the stage at which a child is asked questions / interviewed will have a profound effect on the accuracy of the child’s testimony.”

[21]The guidance in Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, published jointly by the Ministry of Justice and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, January 2022, (“ABE Guidance”) provides comprehensive advice about interviewing victims and witnesses. In Re P (above) MacDonald J said:

“856. The ABE Guidance is advisory rather than a legally enforceable code. However, significant departures from the good practice advocated in it will likely result in reduced (or in extreme cases no) weight being attached to the interview by the courts. Within this context guidance from the Children Act Advisory Committee concerning the Memorandum of Good Practice, which preceded the ABE Guidelines, made clear that: “Any joint child abuse interview conducted by police and social services must follow the memorandum of good practice. Otherwise, not only is the resulting interview of no forensic value, but it may impede or contaminate any further assessment of the child ordered by the court.”

The Court of Appeal has on repeated occasions allowed appeals against findings of child sexual abuse where there has been a failure (i) to undertake proper preparation, (ii) to note carefully the preparatory work undertaken with a child. (iii) to understand the background to allegations being made; (iv) to abide by rules as to questioning; (v) to follow guidance as to being open-minded and (vi) to engage in repeated interviews (see for example TW v A City Council

[2011] 1 FLR 1597

; Re W v Re F (Children)

[2015] EWCA Civ 1300

and Re E (A Child) (Evidence)

[2017] 1 FLR 1675

). 857. The purpose of the ABE interview goal is to provide the child with an opportunity to give an accurate and reliable account in a way that is fair, in the child’s interests and acceptable to the court. The ABE interview is emphatically not a vehicle for encouraging a child to simply repeat allegations made to others (which approach risks falling into the traps set out at Paragraph [X] above). In TW v A City Council Wall LJ (as he then was) observed as follows in this context:

“…we are left with the clear impression from the interview that the officer was using it purely for what she perceived to be an evidence gathering exercise and in particular to make MR repeat on camera what she had said to her mother. That is emphatically not what an ABE interview is about and we have come to the view that we can place no evidential weight on it.”

Evidence The Events of 2015

Evidence

[22]With my permission, Ms Bazley KC spent some time cross-examining MAZ about reports of suspected child abuse she made against FAZ in 2015 in the immediate aftermath of their separation. The first incident arose upon AZ’s return from spending time with FAZ on 25 July 2015. According to MAZ’s witness statement of 17 January 2016 in previous proceedings, AZ had said to her mother that evening, ““Daddy had been silly on the train” and she had hit her father in the face when they were on the train and he had hit her back in the face twice.” It does not appear that MAZ asked FAZ about what had happened. She accepted that there were no marks on AZ’s face. AZ could have been describing a bit of fun or silliness between her and her father but MAZ subsequently reported this incident to a mediator who then reported the incident to social services as AZ telling MAZ that FAZ “had hit her in the face several times.” MAZ reported to the police on 13 September 2023 that AZ had said, “Daddy hit me in the face.” Later, in an exchange of messages with GH in 2022, MAZ said that when AZ was aged three, FAZ had “hit her around the face … he admitted this.”

[23]The second incident was on 4 September 2015 when AZ’s nursery contacted MAZ after AZ had drawn a picture of herself with her parents. She and her mother were clothed but FAZ was depicted naked with male genitalia. The best contemporaneous evidence I have of this event is from the contact records of the London Borough of Lewisham Children’s Services. They record that MAZ contacted them out of hours on 4 September 2015 saying that earlier that day AZ’s nursery had contacted her with a concern that a girl of AZ’s age would be able to draw such a picture and that they were going to make a referral to children’s services on 7 September. In fact LB of Lewisham later record on 14 September 2015 that “no referrals have been sent by nursery.”

[24]I also have a police case record dated 13 September 2015 which records, “Allegation of sexual assault against 3 year old female by father.” It is noteworthy how quickly the nursery’s concern about the drawing had escalated to a complaint of sexual abuse by the father. The police record that MAZ had reported that AZ had said to her “Daddy says that I suck my thumb and then Mummy sucks her thumb and it goes in my mouth and in my jamas.” MAZ had also reported that AZ’s groin area was redder than normal and that AZ was complaining of pain in “her lower area”. MAZ had also reported that the nursery had told her that, at some time prior to AZ’s creating her drawing, she had “repeatedly attempted to touch a male PE teacher’s groin area.” MAZ had also reported to the police that FAZ appeared to be very keen on taking the desktop computer from the house. MAZ reported a period of ten minutes on 30 August 2015 at her house when FAZ had had unsupervised access to AZ. She told the police that she feared FAZ may have got wind of the nursery contacting social services (in fact she had made the referral, not the nursery) and that “he may have gone to [another part of the UK] to stay with family.” MAZ had a “very strong feeling” that FAZ had sexually assaulted their daughter.

[25]On 13 September the police recorded that they advised MAZ to get AZ seen medically because of her complaints of soreness but that they did not “believe that we would get authority for, or that it is right to do, an internal examination at this stage.” MAZ took AZ to her GP that day and as a result of her report to him he advised her to go to A&E which she did. It was decided that an internal examination was not required but nothing of note was found save for some old bruising to her torso.

[26]On 14 September 2015 the LB of Lewisham contact record noted “the level of allegations against the father appears to be increasing.” On 15 September 2015 MAZ gave to the police four further pictures made by AZ which “she felt were concerning and which she had recovered from her husband’s bedside drawer.” The police noted that none of them were concerning in their opinion.

[27]AZ was spoken to but did not reveal anything of concern. The police spoke to HK, the safeguarding lead at the nursery, who told them that MAZ had said that FAZ would walk naked around the house, that AZ had drawn what she sees, and that the nursery “did not have any real concerns about the picture.” Furthermore, AZ “never uses any inappropriate language and did not show any inappropriate behaviour.” The PE teacher had reported that AZ had been “trying to touch his private area by running to him and cuddling him.” He thought it had “happened accidentally but when it happened a third time he reported it. He had been asked if she had said anything or done anything else and he had said “absolutely not” He said that he worked with a lot of children of her age and “it happens”.

[28]A search of the family computer produced nothing of concern.

[29]On 24 September 2015 the police noted that social services were “concerned by [MAZ]’s behaviour, they also have concerns that she is manic and highly strung and may be struggling to deal with the divorce and AZ’s behaviour could be a result of this.”

[30]MAZ was later informed that the police were closing the case with no further action. Two days later, on 13 November 2015, the police recorded that MAZ appeared not to be satisfied and was insistent that the pictures were concerning and “she believed that something had happened because “[FAZ] was sexually abused as a child”. This is an allegation he strongly denies. He has been open that he was physically abused as a child but never sexually abused. Later that month AZ’s GP referred AZ to CAMHS who then refused the referral because “there are no identifiable mental health difficulties in this child.”

[31]A third incident was one which MAZ alleged occurred when AZ was aged two and the family was still living together. She alleges that FAZ hit AZ in the face. She made that allegation for the first time to NYAS as reported in its caseworker report dated 18 June 2025, some 11 years after the event. MAZ had had ample opportunity to make this allegation in the proceedings in 2016 and it is particularly surprising that she did not do so, if the event occurred, when she was then alleging that the father had hit AZ in the face in July 2015. She told me that she had witnessed the incident and that she felt shame for not doing anything about it at the time and for not alluding to it before she referred to it in 2025.

Arrangements from September 2016 to December 2023

[32]Following a s7 report in private law proceedings in 2016, the parents agreed contact arrangements by which AZ was to live with her mother but spend unsupervised time, including overnight, with her father. Notwithstanding ongoing distrust and animosity between MAZ and FAZ, the arrangements worked and AZ had the benefit of alternate weekends with her father and with his new partner GH, holidays away with them, and latterly, Monday and Friday evenings with him when he would help her with her maths schoolwork. There were some difficulties but to all appearances AZ enjoyed her time with her father and laid down some very happy memories.

[33]One difficult incident occurred during the Covid pandemic. GH had given AZ and list of phone numbers she might use in the case of emergencies after AZ had expressed concerns about what would happen if MAZ got Covid and she had no-one to look after her if they were locked down. She also gave AZ a first aid manual thinking that this would be reassuring to her. AZ later reported to GH that on finding the list in AZ’s bag, MAZ had torn it up saying it was an insult to her as a bad mother. MAZ admitted in cross-examination that she had done this and that she had felt undermined.

[34]In late 2021, MAZ wrote to FAZ strongly criticising him for having told AZ details of a person’s suicide. FAZ responded that he had not done so but it was possible that AZ had overheard him speaking about the matter to another adult and he would be astute to ensure that could not happen again. The tone of the father’s message to the mother is very conciliatory.

[35]AZ started counselling in early 2022. She had had difficulty sleeping and some dysregulated episodes. FAZ and GH have explained to the court that during some of those episodes they would hold her tight whilst she calmed down. They had looked into how to deal with such behaviour and considered this as a suitable response. FAZ may have once held AZ too tightly and GH told him to loosen his hold which he did. One episode of holding appears to have been when AZ was on her bed and she has later reported this as FAZ sitting on her.

[36]Another difficult incident occurred in July 2022. One of AZ’s activities at the time was a martial arts club. FAZ would engage in play fights with her at his home and during one of those she suffered a carpet burn to her face. MAZ messaged GH:

“We need to discuss this head injury – how did she get it … I need to know what happened asap.”

During further messaging with GH in which GH tried to reassure MAZ, MAZ wrote, “… he hit her around the face when she was 3 and contact had to be supervised. He admitted this so you can see why I have concerns… Had there not been a background of carelessness, swearing, suicide discussions and the prior-history before you, I would have agreed with you. As it is I have to be more careful. So should you two.”

[37]Then, in October 2022, MAZ contacted AZ’s school about a safeguarding concern following an incident when AZ was at FAZ’s home with GH. In short, FAZ admits that he lost his temper about the fact that AZ did not have the right shoes with her for school. He says that he was frustrated with the lack of communication between him and MAZ about such matters but, it seems to me, AZ may have felt he was angry with her. It appears that AZ left the room and GH stood in front of the door. In his temper, FAZ climbed out of the large window and into the garden – they were on the ground floor and there was a low sill, so climbing out was relatively easy. Shortly afterwards he had to ask to be let in at the front door. He had taken his t-shirt off and had no shoes on. He made some comment about thinking he would have to break back in through a window. AZ saw him then at the door. Later GH took AZ for a drive whilst FAZ calmed down. It was not his finest moment.

[38]In July 2023, FAZ became very drunk when at a friend’s house with AZ and GH. Those two drove home when he said he would not leave and wanted to stay. Later he got lost walking home and GH had to put AZ in the car and drive out to find him and bring him home. He apologised profusely for his behaviour at the time, including to MAZ. There is no evidence that this was anything but a one-off.

[39]In September 2023, AZ started at secondary school. In the same month her great aunt died. She was a large character in the paternal family and AZ was affected by her loss. In the following month the school recorded that AZ had been upset at school after being teased and pranked about being gay. MAZ and FAZ were informed of the incident and MAZ wrote to FAZ that she would consider moving AZ to an alternative school if there was a recurrence.

[40]By late 2023, AZ was seeing her father and GH regularly both on two weekdays each week and every other weekend. Notwithstanding the events in 2022 set out above, she was still apparently happy to spend time with him. Unusually for them, her parents had joined together to buy her a present for Christmas. Relations between MAZ and FAZ were not good but they were, if anything, better than they had been for some time. On 8 December 2023 AZ left the home of her father and GH apparently in good spirits. She had wanted to stay to finish watching a programme with her father. She had been in discussions with GH about attending a formal event together. Her messaging with GH about that event was extremely warm and affectionate on both sides. It makes what followed all the more striking.

AZ’s Allegations: December 2023 to March 2024

[41]On 8 December 2023 AZ concluded a stay with her father and GH, apparently on good terms. GH and AZ had discussed the event they were due to attend together. AZ had been reluctant but later that evening she messaged GH:

“I have changed my mind about the party. I would love to. We could do it just like a girls night out and have a fun girly bonding time … it will be soo much fun just us?”

[42]9 and 10 December 2023 were a weekend which AZ spent with MAZ. On 10 December 2023, MAZ messaged GH about the party:

“I am really sorry but she has changed her mind and is very upset. So it’s no. I am sorry. But I have to respect her wishes. I will be picking her up from school tomorrow, this is something she also wishes.”

In subsequent messages MAZ said that “[AZ] heard that her father would be accompanying her because I told her of the arrangement for pick up … [AZ] became upset, said that she no longer wanted to go and burst into tears … The upset has been extreme. I had not understood it … The level of upset did concern me. [AZ] had been fine until she understood that her father would pick her up to attend the event.” MAZ and GH had a two hour telephone conversation that night .GH says that the conversation ranged over recent bullying at school and MAZ’s view that FAZ’s father was a “horrible person” and her concern that FAZ was going to become like his father. She says, “I would say that [MAZ] struck me as being in quite a volatile emotional state and I wondered whether [AZ] was picking up on some of this from her.”

[43]At 0032 on 11 December 2023, MAZ emailed FAZ, “[AZ] needs counselling … I hope that we can take a pause from the usual and let [AZ] feel she has some control. Once she has that, I’m guessing that some of these intense feelings will diminish, and she will feel happier.” Later that morning MAZ wrote, “It‘s also important to note that this is not just some adolescent pose – and there may be a way forward but it’s not going to come from “I will talk to [AZ]”. It’s going to come, if at all, from a really frank assessment of these incidents re alcohol, and also the threat of smashing a window in her presence this year … She isn’t coping with this. What underlies this is unpredictability and dysregulated behaviour. Sufficient to scare anyone.” AZ did not attend school on 11 and 12 December 2023 and was at home with MAZ on those days. MAZ says that AZ set out some rules or conditions for seeing her father. She messaged FAZ asking him to agree to them but without telling him what they are. FAZ replied that he agreed to be respectful of AZ’s wishes and feelings but could not agree to a list of rules without seeing them. For example, he had imposed screen time limits for AZ and he did not want to agree to lift those. MAZ responded, “That’s a shame … it’s you making a veto. It’s disappointing but expected.” Later MAZ wrote, “she has asked for very little. And it has taken her a lot to do this. I don’t have to do this at all. I don’t. Remember that.” Again, she did not let FAZ know what AZ had asked for.

[44]On 13 December 2023, AZ returned to school and went to see the school counsellor, then spoke to the school safeguarding lead who noted that AZ complained that her father “drains her” and she is “scared by his reaction.” She gave the example of the drunken episode. She said that when they talked, he questioned her and it upset her. She said that when she was aged seven, he had told her about someone who had hurt themselves deliberately, which had upset her. She was asked if she felt safe and she said she did not feel safe with her father. She reported having suicidal thoughts. She was asked if anything could be changed to stop her feeling like this and she said, “my dad”. She was tearful and said she did not want to go to his house for Christmas or for maths tutoring during weekday evenings. She said that “her father was a ‘very difficult man’ and that he would go to court if she refused to visit him. She said she thought that how he behaves is why her mother and father got divorced, she said she thought her mother had been ‘abused’.”

[45]MAZ had a meeting with AZ’s school on 14 December and the following day the school safeguarding lead met with both parents and GH to relay what AZ had told her. All agreed that AZ would stay with MAZ over Christmas.

[46]On 18 December 2023, MAZ made an online referral for AZ to her GP. She wrote, “Child announced that she was considering suicide … if she had to have contact with her father at Christmas … has displayed very anxious behaviour when discussed incidents during child contact with her father, and his behaviour and temper.” The GP made a referral to the LB of Bromley social services and an urgent referral to CAMHS.

[47]On 20 December 2023, MAZ emailed FAZ to say, “It’s been a busy and difficult time … matters are now more serious than when we attended the meeting…” On 21 December 2023, FAZ offered his and GH’s help and he asked to know what was happening. He asked how AZ was feeling. MAZ responded telling him not to worry, that she would be in contact if there was any change, and that it would be best for AZ “that this matter is readdressed in the New Year.” On the same day, the LB of Bromley drew up a safety plan noting that AZ had had suicidal thoughts “triggered by thoughts of having to spend time with her father. AZ disclosed that when angry her father has been physically abusive towards her – prior to the age of 7, he used to sit on her when angry, and after that, he used to hold her very tightly until it was painful.” In MAZ’s first conversation with the social worker she said that she “would be going to court to vary the existing Court Order to ensure that [AZ] is never left alone with her father.”

[48]Over the following few days FAZ sought some information about how AZ was but MAZ gave him virtually no information and there was little communication with him at all. At a social worker visit to AZ on 29 December 2023, MAZ reported that AZ had blocked her father and did not want to talk to or see him. MAZ also stated that “in the past she also thinks [FAZ] was very inappropriate with AZ, he would be naked around her when she was young.”

[49]On 6 January 2024, according to MAZ’s later statement to the police, AZ was very upset at the prospect of returning to school saying that she would want to be killed rather than to return. MAZ says AZ was very anxious and said, “he touched me”, referring to her father:

“She was hysterical and I felt it was best that I don’t ask her any questions.”

MAZ told the police that on 7 January 2024 she had revisited what AZ had said and “she explained that her father had taken all his clothes off aside from his underpants and got into the bed with her and I said. “OK then what happened, you said he touched you”. She said, “Yes, he touched me on the bottom … she also said that he wouldn’t move his hand and she had asked him to move it and then she had to move his hand. When she was talking to me about it, she wasn’t distressed.” MAZ emailed MASH at 11.36 am that day, “My daughter says that she will kill herself if she is made to see her father. This weekend she said that she was petrified of him; and said that he had recently started to come into her bedroom and get into bed with her but would strip down to his underpants … She told me that he had placed his hand on her bottom.” MAZ says that she was advised to contact the police and did so on 9 January 2024. Meanwhile FAZ was continuing to seek some information about AZ from MAZ who replied that AZ did not want any contact with him.

[50]On 9 January 2024, AZ borrowed books from the school library on topics including domestic violence, domestic abuse, child abuse and self-harm and suicide. The school librarian raised a safeguarding concern. AZ had a panic attack at school and was taken to see the school nurse who recorded that AZ “has admitted to three occasions when her father has climbed into [AZ]’s bed dressed only in his underpants. On all three occasions her father has placed his hand on her bottom… There have been numerous occasions the father has picked up [AZ]’s dirty underwear and smelt the underwear and then say to [AZ] “that needs washing” or “that’s ok” … she said her father put the clothes in the washing basket after establishing if they were dirty.”

[51]On the morning of 9 January 2024, FAZ wrote to MAZ by email saying that AZ had not said (before Christmas) that she had felt suicidal about spending time with “us” over Christmas but that she had a very complex mental health need. He earnestly sought some role in helping AZ. He did not then know of any of her recent allegations which had now been reported to her school, social services, and the police. Police officers attended AZ at her mother’s home that evening. I have viewed the body worn camera footage of their visit. AZ seems to me to be relaxed given the circumstances. AZ was clear that she had asked her father for a cuddle on the occasions when he had subsequently got into the bed with her. His hand had touched her bottom over clothing (her pyjamas). The police noted, “Mother at this point … was clearly upset, she remained quiet but was visibly upset.”

[52]A social worker attended on AZ on 12 January and asked how AZ had felt when the touching had happened:

“[AZ] said she thought it was normal as no one spoke to her about it until she made a disclosure to her mother and the school.”

On 15 January 2024, AZ was reporting feeling suicidal and Bromley youth services made a referral to CAMHS. On 18 January 2024 at a strategy discussion within social services it was recorded that there was “probably domestic abuse going on within the household [of FAZ and GH]… Based on what [AZ] described it’s as if step mum is really scared of dad.”. Neither FAZ nor GH had been spoken to before this conclusion had been reached. They updated the police that “mum advised to go to A&E for urgent assessment [of AZ] … Mum was very emotional.”

[53]GH has told the police in a later statement that AZ had texted her on 19 January 2024 about paying for Minecraft for a console she had. They had had “nice interaction by text”. GH later emailed MAZ that she had been messaging with AZ and later noted that AZ’s phone had been cut off.

[54]On 22 and 23 January 2024, AZ did not attend school, MAZ reporting that she was very tired because she was not sleeping due to having nightmares and that she had “possible PTSD, trauma.” MAZ informed the social worker that she was struggling to secure mental health support for AZ because “the providers I have approached will not deal with her due to the suicide risk.” The following day, 24 January 2024, social workers visited AZ at school and noted, “I asked [AZ] how she thought [MAZ] was doing at present and she stated that [MAZ] appeared to be stressed out.” AZ said she wanted to make progress with the police interview. AZ had a video call with CAMHS integrated single point of access in which she “denied intent to end her life at present.” The following day, 25 January 2024, MAZ contacted CAMHS to report that AZ had been suicidal the night before, stating that she would jump from the window. MAZ was concerned about an ABE police interview going ahead given AZ’s mental fragility. That afternoon MAZ took AZ to A&E after school. The history of presenting complaint was recorded as “history of physical abuse and neglect from father. Historical sexual assault disclosed from dad.”

[55]On 26 January 2024 the allocated social worker visited AZ at home and noted that she “appeared to be in a happier mood and she was smiling and laughing with me. AZ stated that she was feeling much better today. It was also recorded that”, “[MAZ] is prepared for potential further disclosures to come out.” The social worker noted that AZ had stated that she was a “sensory seeker” and that exploration of a potential Autism diagnosis might be considered, with her mother agreeing that a diagnosis of Autism would make sense and explain some of AZ’s thought patterns and behaviours. Nevertheless, MAZ has not pursued any investigations into whether AZ has autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) and AZ’s therapist has treated her as a young person with complex PTSD and not as someone with ASD.

[56]On 30 January 2025, at a CAMHS appointment with AZ also attended by MAZ, MAZ stated that she had begun to have safeguarding concerns about FAZ when AZ was three but that FAZ was highly educated and articulate “so no one believed her.” She referred to the drawing AZ had made at nursery of her father naked.

[57]On 6 February 2024, AZ reported to her allocated social worker that she had wet herself in a restaurant when a man had hugged her.

[58]On 7 February 2024, the officer in charge of the investigation wrote to the allocated social worker that they had made “numerous attempts” to contact MAZ to arrange for the video recorded interview but had had no response and that the case would be closed if there was no response by 20 February.

[59]The video recorded police interview with AZ took place on 21 February 2024. I have viewed the recording. AZ appears confident. She was articulate and communicative. She showed a full understanding of the importance of telling the truth. She described in detail what happened on the occasions when her father got into bed with her. These were all at her request and she emphasised that touching was over clothing. The interviewing officer left the room three or four times to consult with another officer. AZ gave repeated, detailed accounts of her father’s hand touching her bottom, usually after he had been in her bed for a few minutes, and his not moving his hand when asked (and not responding verbally at all ). She said that this had been awkward and uncomfortable at the time which is why she had asked him to move his hand. She then developed her account to say [redacted].Her account of how FAZ’s fingers and even his “finger nail” would touch her seems much less clear than her earlier accounts during the interview. In her statement of 23 April 2026, MAZ has said that she noticed this too and wonders whether AZ had read about abuse in the library books she had taken out at school and had incorporated some information from the books into her memories of what happened with her father.

March 2024 to Date

[60]In the weeks after AZ’s police interview MAZ began to raise concerns that AZ may not have been fed when staying with her father and had suffered neglect in his care.

[61]The police decided not to continue the investigation and the officer in charge spoke to MAZ about the decision on 4 July 2024. They recorded that she was “unhappy” with the decision and “asked me what would be enough for the investigation … [she] appeared frustrated that she would have to go through the family court to stop contact … describing him as a horrible man who abuses [AZ] … [she] believes that he should be in prison.”

[62]On 11 July 2024, CAMHS noted that, “at this stage it seeks that [AZ]’s father is not aware of any CAMHS involvement. Due to the Police and Social Work advice I have not sought contact with [him].”

[63]After FAZ applied to the court to have some contact with AZ, MAZ liaised with CAMHS and AZ’s GP about putting evidence before the court. By then – the autumn of 2024 – it appears that AZ was being treated for complex PTSD. During the proceedings MAZ reported to the NYAS caseworker that AZ had displayed “sexually inappropriate behaviour” when younger. This must be a reference to AZ having run into the nursery’s PE teacher for cuddles, something he himself thought was innocent behaviour for a child then aged three. This was not a concern about sexualised behaviour and no other concerns about sexualised behaviour were ever recorded. In these proceedings, MAZ sought the summary dismissal of the father’s applications and an order for costs against him referring to the proceedings as “wholly avoidable”. She has applied for a s91(14) order restricting any further applications by the father and she opposed the listing of a finding of fact hearing.

Evidence at the Hearing

[64]Both parents were subjected to lengthy cross-examination at the hearing. To assist MAZ to give her best evidence, FAZ was absent from the court room, viewing and listening remotely with his camera turned off, whilst MAZ gave evidence. She was an articulate but somewhat anxious and introspective witness. In her oral evidence her general case with regard to AZ’s allegations of sexual abuse against FAZ was that she believed her daughter, that she had merely been a conduit between her daughter and authorities including the police, and had not influenced her in any way. At the outset of the hearing she had informed the court that she no longer pursued the first allegation which concerned FAZ sniffing AZ’s clothes. Then, after hearing FAZ give evidence, she made a further written statement to the court in which she stated:

“I have concluded that I do not seek to pursue the two findings relating to sexual abuse any further.”

She said that FAZ had explained in his oral evidence that at times he fell asleep after having limbed into bed to cuddle AZ. MAZ said that she remembered how infuriating it was that he could fall asleep very quickly. She could understand how his arm could fall onto AZ’s thigh and bottom and rest there whilst he slept. “The description given by [FAZ] sounded credible and authentic. I do not think … that this had any abusive or sexual intent.” Furthermore, she had reconsidered the recording of AZ’s police interview in the context of AZ having taken certain books out of the school library. She noticed a change in the way AZ had explained the process of cuddling with her father in bed later in the interview when she described his finger positioning and agreed with FAZ that it “sounds different to the earlier descriptions”. She considered that the books AZ had seen might have been incorporated into the “real memory”. She wrote of her relationship with FAZ in 2023:

“I was not open enough. I wish now I was not so defensive that it made it impossible to really work together. When he gave evidence, it was the first time I had actually heard him and saw him acknowledge mistakes.”

She continued: “Having reached the conclusion I have, I still think it is the case that AZ believes she has suffered abuse and she has remained opposed to contact with her father. This will need to be handled sensitively, and it needs to be explained to her that neither of her parents think she has suffered any sexual abuse. I think that her psychotherapy through CAMHS should be suspended. I think it is important we work together to repair [FAZ]’s relationship with AZ. I really hope that this can form the basis for a new way of communicating with each other. I will support appropriate mental health intervention and family therapy to explore contact. I would agree to a psychological assessment and autism assessment of AZ. AZ may need emotional permission to see her father, and I feel I can provide this”.

[65]FAZ gave evidence with apparent calm and some assurance but without being in any way arrogant or dismissive. He was under considerable pressure because he has been alleged to have physically and sexually abused his daughter. He has not seen her or had any contact with her for well over two years. For him, the allegations were not only false but had been encouraged, perhaps even engineered, by his ex-wife. In those circumstances he showed considerable restraint and understanding in the witness box. He did not try to exculpate himself but fully and frankly admitted past mistakes and weaknesses. When, part way through his evidence, MAZ changed her position, he showed no signs of triumphalism.

[66]I did not hear from GH because MAZ decided she did not wish to question her. However, I had lengthy written evidence from her. GH clearly has talents for human insight and written expression. I guard myself against being too easily persuaded by her facility for language. Nevertheless, I found her evidence compelling. Like FAZ, her evidence showed little bitterness although some signs of anger towards MAZ. She did not portray FAZ as a saint – far from it, she was withering about some of his shortcomings. I found her pen portraits of AZ to be touching and full of insight.

[67]A Re W analysis was carried out at a case management stage in advance of the hearing and all parties agreed that AZ should not be required to give evidence because the harm to her from having to do so would far outweigh the forensic benefits, in particular since she had given an ABE interview to the police.

Analysis and Conclusions

[68]Given MAZ’s sudden change of position, and her acceptance that the remaining allegations cannot be proved against FAZ, indeed that he has not been guilty of any sexual abuse, my lengthy recital of the evidence may seem to be unnecessary. The reason I have set out the history of events so fully is that it is important to understand the genesis and development of the allegations in order to underline FAZ’s innocence, to give a proper account and explanation to professionals, to allow analysis of MAZ’s role, and, most importantly, to enable AZ to reach some sort of understanding.

[69]This was a fact finding hearing into MAZ’s allegations against FAZ, not of FAZ’s allegations against MAZ. I do not think it fair to treat the father’s allegations of dishonesty regarding events in 2015-16 as though they were allegations of fact for me to determine. However, as background to subsequent events I am satisfied that in 2015-16 MAZ appeared to be building a case of sexual abuse against FAZ on the flimsiest of foundations. Her insinuations about what might be on his computer, for example, were without any rational basis. Raising the possibility of his keeping indecent images in the context of the investigations at that time was inevitably going to cast more suspicion over him, unfairly so. The reports from the nursery did not warrant the level of police scrutiny that the father had to face. It was MAZ who escalated matters.

[70]In closing, FAZ’s Counsel produced a “Schedule of Lies told by the Mother” which runs to 29 pages. The schedule refers to a number of aspects of MAZ’s evidence in the proceedings including when giving oral evidence, which, I agree, contained inconsistencies including the following: 70.1. In June 2025, MAZ told the NYAS caseworker that she remembered that when AZ was only two years old, FAZ had hit her on the face. In her oral evidence MAZ told me that she had been present when FAZ had slapped AZ in the face with an open hand and had said that “your mummy’s not going to do anything about this.” However, she made no reference to this incident in reports to the police in 2015 about AZ telling her that FAZ had hit her in the face on a train when she was aged 3. It was not mentioned in her statements to the police, to any professional, or to the court in the proceedings in 2015-16. If she believed that the July 2015 incident was the second occasion on which her then husband had struck her daughter in the face, surely she would have said so at the time? MAZ told me that she felt shame that she had not done so but gave no satisfactory reason why she had not referred to this alleged incident until 2025. 70.2. In July 2022, MAZ wrote to GH that FAZ had hit AZ “around the face when she was 3” and had “admitted this”. He had not admitted it and she knew he had not. 70.3. In 2015, MAZ repeatedly told others, including the police, that the nursery had referred concerns about AZ’s drawing to social services, when in fact they had not. They may have told MAZ that they intended to do so, but they never did. She was the one who referred the concerns and she was not fully open about having done so. 70.4. MAZ said to the police that at the meeting at school involving both parents and GH on 15 December 2023, FAZ had been resistant to the idea of AZ spending Christmas with her, but the evidence of GH, which was not ultimately challenged, was that he had readily agreed to it given what he was told at that meeting about AZ’s mental health and her wishes. Indeed, at that time he was remarkably accommodating and patient given that he was being stopped from seeing his daughter. 70.5. MAZ repeatedly told professionals that AZ was threatening suicide if she was made to see or spend Christmas with her father in 2023, but the record of what she told the school on 13 December 2023 was not to that effect. She had said both that she did not want to see him and that she had had suicidal thoughts. She also said that not seeing him would make her feel better. But she did not say, as MAZ represented to others, that it was the prospect of spending time with him that had triggered suicidal thoughts or that she would try to kill herself if she was made to spend time with him. 70.6. MAZ’s accounts of AZ trying to commit suicide by jumping from an upstairs window in January 2024 have been inconsistent. In February 2025, MAZ spoke to CAMHS about having to pull AZ from jumping from the window. In contrast, in her witness statement of 4 September 2025, MAZ wrote that “AZ confirmed that she attempted to climb out of a window to commit suicide.” In oral evidence, MAZ said that she thinks AZ had tried to get out of the window. She said that AZ had told her that she had tried to open the window but the window had been locked. 70.7. MAZ told CAMHS that FAZ had thrown AZ against a wall causing a bruise to her head. This was the incident when in a play fight, AZ had suffered a carpet burn to her forehead. MAZ did not have any evidence that FAZ had thrown AZ against a wall and that account was inconsistent with everything she had been told about the minor injury at the time.

[71]In addition, MAZ has planted the idea in the minds of professionals that FAZ has a propensity to sexually abuse AZ: 71.1. In 2015, MAZ had developed the innocent and unclear story from AZ about her thumb (and indeed her mother’s thumb) into an insinuation of sexual abuse by FAZ. 71.2. MAZ raised concerns with the police in 2015, or at the very least insinuated, that FAZ may have indecent images on his computer and that he had fled from the area to avoid investigation for sexual abuse. 71.3. In 2015, MAZ told police that FAZ was sexually abused as a child. There is no evidence of that and FAZ has flatly denied it, whilst asserting that his father was a bully and physically abusive. She said this to raise the suspicion that he was now a perpetrator of sexual abuse himself. 71.4. MAZ knew full well that the 2015-16 investigations into possible sexual abuse of AZ by FAZ ended with a firm conclusion that no abuse had occurred, yet in 2023-4 she repeatedly referred to concerns from that time about sexual abuse, thereby insinuating that the authorities had long had concerns about FAZ as a possible perpetrator.

[72]Thirdly, MAZ has embellished her evidence: 72.1. MAZ has stated to the court that she had to redecorate AZ’s room at home so she is not reminded of the abuse she had disclosed, some of which occurred in that room. There is no evidence of any allegations of abuse occurring in her room at MAZ’s home. 72.2. MAZ told a social worker in February 2024 that she had had to replace AZ’s pyjamas because FAZ had put his “hands inside” her old ones. AZ had never suggested that he had touched her under her clothing. 72.3. MAZ has alleged that FAZ failed to feed AZ and neglected her in his care. There is no evidence to justify such an allegation.

[73]Although AZ herself did report having suicidal thoughts, it is notable that during the period December 2023 to March 2024 there were occasions when MAZ reported to professionals that AZ was deeply upset and dangerously suicidal but when she was seen by a professional the next day, AZ reported herself not to be suicidal and, on one occasion, even smiling and happy.

[74]MAZ repeatedly stated, prior to the latter part of this hearing, that she did not recognise FAZ’s concerns that AZ may have ASD. In a sudden change, that is now a shared concern and it is clear from the evidence before me that, whether or not AZ does have ASD, the concerns that she may have are based on reasonable grounds.

[75]In response to the “schedule of lies” Ms Holmes for MAZ has submitted that MAZ had consistently facilitated family time between FAZ and AZ for several years and that their relationship was “warm”, as the mother accepted in her oral evidence. She also agreed that GH had been a “constructive presence” in AZ’s life. In 2023, MAZ had been promoted to a demanding role and the last thing she wanted was to have all the child care responsibilities rather than sharing them with FAZ and GH. She had no incentive to concoct or encourage false allegations against FAZ. Arrangements were working for MAZ as well, apparently, for AZ. Ms Holmes submitted that MAZ’s conduct in late 2023 and thereafter was explicable “not with reference to bad faith but with other factors … [AZ]’s distress, the mother’s own anxiety rooted in the loss her mother to suicide and the experience of the father’s conduct during the marriage, and the engagement of the safeguarding system which … conferred a weight upon the mother” which she was “disposed to accept”. Nevertheless, Ms Holmes accepted on her client’s behalf , “inaccuracies and errors of judgment”. She conceded that “good faith and anxiety do not, on their own, prevent harm, and that her conduct contributed to consequences for [AZ] that she now profoundly regrets.”

[76]In relation to MAZ’s evidence, I make allowance for her life experiences, her anxieties, and her understandable desire to protect her daughter. However, there are aspects of her behaviour and her evidence in these proceedings, as set out at paragraphs 70 to 72 above, which have trespassed beyond parental protectiveness and cannot wholly be explained by anxiety.

[77]In these respects MAZ has been inconsistent and/or has exaggerated or distorted evidence to support her case that the father is a “horrible man” who has sexually abused their daughter. I have considered whether the exaggerations and distortions were attributable to anxiety but I find that in these respects she knew that she was not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that she chose to build her case against the father rather than to be honest with professionals and/or the court. I find that she was convinced that he had abused AZ but that she was at times dishonest in building the case against him in the respects set out at paragraphs 70 to 72 above. It is telling that after the police decided to take no further action against FAZ, MAZ asked what it would take to prosecute him and said that she believed he should be in prison. She had a similar response in 2016 when it was decided that no action should be taken against FAZ.

[78]MAZ contributed to the shutting down of any possibility of an assessment of whether AZ has ASD. She has now suddenly changed her position. I find that she was so blinkered by her determination to prove that FAZ had abused AZ – something she sincerely believed – that she did not want other possible explanations for AZ’s distress and behaviour to be explored.

[79]I am troubled by a disconnect between MAZ’s accounts of AZ’s emotional state in December 2023 to February 2024 on the one hand, and her appearance on videos and to professionals at the time, on the other. Of course AZ’s moods may have swung violently, but she appears relaxed and confident when speaking to police, and there are very few records from that time describing her as MAZ has described her. In a similar vein, my first involvement in these proceedings arose when MAZ was seeking to prevent any disclosure to FAZ for fear that AZ would commit suicide if he knew of her allegations. As with many aspects of this case the picture is not straightforward. MAZ may have deliberately exaggerated AZ’s mental health as a crisis, or her own anxiety may have led her to paint AZ’s mental health as being much worse than it was. On balance the evidence does not persuade me that she was being dishonest about AZ’s emotional state at the time, but I do find that her evidence about AZ’s mental health at that time is unreliable and distorted by her own anxiety and over-protectiveness.

[80]During these proceedings and in her oral evidence MAZ made an allegation that FAZ had hit AZ in the face when she was just two years old. This allegation had not been made before, even during the proceedings in 2016 in which she made another allegation of very similar physical abuse. The omission at that time is inexplicable if indeed FAZ had struck AZ in the face as now alleged. I do not find the allegation now made to be credible but I am not persuaded that the mother was being dishonest when she raised it. I accept that MAZ truly believes that FAZ deliberately hit AZ in the face when she was aged 2. She has convinced herself of that but her belief is not based on fact, it has arisen from her pre-occupations and her distorted views of FAZ’s conduct.

[81]Nevertheless, although I find that MAZ has been guilty of dishonesty in her determination to prove that FAZ was guilty of abusing AZ, I repeat that I accept that she genuinely believed that he had done so. MAZ’s mother took her own life. MAZ herself then became suicidal. Her then husband, FAZ, was suicidal at the end of their marriage. It is no wonder that MAZ is highly sensitised to any allusions to suicide or self-harm, and deeply anxious about anything that might adversely affect her daughter’s mental health. She was not present at the “window incident” in 2022 but she framed what was clearly a loss of temper as FAZ manifesting suicidal thoughts in front of AZ. When AZ herself expressed suicidal thoughts in late 2023 the impact on MAZ was profound.

[82]Alongside that anxiety lies MAZ’s deep distrust of FAZ. She told me frankly that she does not like him, but her feelings run much deeper than that. She finds his behaviour to be erratic and harmful to their daughter. She has a conditioned response to any incident that affects AZ when in FAZ’s care – it is his fault and AZ needs protecting from him. Hence her strong reaction to AZ’s minor facial injury after a play fight with FAZ, or framing her three year old daughter’s mention of her and her father hitting each other when they were on a train, as child abuse. In these and other similar incidences she does not seek to understand but to distrust, accuse and protect her child from her perception of a threat.

[83]As was noted by professionals in 2015-16, MAZ became very emotional and disproportionately anxious when reports were raised of AZ having drawn a picture of her father naked and when the nursery school reported that she had touched a male PE teacher’s private parts over his clothing when running to him to seek cuddles. As also noted at the time there was a danger that her own anxieties were influencing AZ. Despite the view of professionals that there was no evidence of any abuse by the father, MAZ clearly found that difficult to accept.

[84]Whilst on the face of it MAZ eventually agreed in 2016 to sensible child arrangements and kept to them, even extending the time AZ spent with her father, over the next seven years or so, it is clear that her distrust of him and her anxiety that he was an abusive father, never left her. There is little to no evidence that in the seven years or so prior to December 2023, AZ had been reluctant to spend time with her father, but she lived with her mother and was liable to absorb her mother’s characterisation of her father’s behaviour. It would have been natural for her to pick up on her mother’s concerns even though, on any objective view, they were disproportionate to the actual events. No parent is perfect and FAZ has let himself down on occasions. AZ may very well have been anxious for him when he needed to be picked up in the car after drinking too much at a party or when he had to be let back into the house after the window incident. But set against years of healthy father/daughter relations, these few events should not have undermined their relationship. Indeed, they did not appear to have done so before December 2023. The mother herself speaks of a warm relationship between AZ and FAZ before December 2023. There is no evidence that anything specific happened during the last contact between father and daughter to undermine that relationship. But, for MAZ, every event, however minor, which may have upset AZ, even temporarily, had a significance well beyond their actual importance and AZ was liable to watch and learn from her mother.

[85]It is not for me to say whether or not she has autistic spectrum disorder but I can make some observations about AZ from the evidence before me. She is a highly intelligent and observant girl. She is sensitive. She has difficulty sleeping. She enjoys routine. She likes to have the same song sung to her at night to help her sleep. She was very upset by the death of her great aunt in the autumn of 2023. At the same time she had difficulties with school peers and was exploring her sexuality in her pre-pubescent state. She has grown up living and spending time with two parents whom she loves and who love her, but who clearly dislike and distrust each other. She is the one who has had to navigate the stormy waters between her parents, testing her loyalties, and making her guarded about what she says about one to the other. She was therefore in a vulnerable state in late 2023. Perhaps, also, there is a tipping point for a sensitive 11 year old whose parents are so hostile to each other.

[86]I cannot know for sure what happened between 8 December 2023 when AZ returned from spending time with her father, and 13 December 2023 when she spoke to a school counsellor and the safeguarding lead reporting that her father “drains her”, that he was a “very difficult man”, that he causes her anxiety, and that she had had thoughts of jumping in front of a train or traffic. However,(i) there is no evidence of any reluctance, resistance, or refusal by AZ to spend time with him to that point;

(ii) there is no evidence of anything happening to her during her most recent time with her father to trigger this response,

(iii) MAZ spent a long time talking to GH on 10 December 2023 about her own view of FAZ and her fear that he would be like his own “horrible” father;

(iv) AZ had just had a weekend and then two days off school spending time with her mother, and (iv) the concerns she expressed about her father on 13 December 2023 mirrored those harboured for many years by her mother and expressed by MAZ to GH on 10 December. In my judgement MAZ was in what GH called a “volatile emotional state” in those few days. I have no evidence that she instructed AZ what to say at school on 13 December 2023 but I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that she allowed AZ to know her own view of FAZ and the various incidents which had occurred when AZ had been in his care.

[87]AZ had experienced recent difficulties and was vulnerable. She may have been anxious about school and feeling very low, as she reported to the school on 13 December 2023. Navigating the emotional hostility between her parents will have been extremely difficult for her. MAZ was desperate to do everything she could to protect AZ. Unfortunately she lost all objectivity. She blamed FAZ for their daughter’s unhappiness. She seized on everything AZ said and did as further evidence of her vulnerability and of the need to protect her from FAZ. After seven years or so of keeping a lid on her anxiety about FAZ, she reverted to the behaviour she had exhibited in 2015/16 after their separation.

[88]I cannot know for sure what caused AZ to report suicidal thoughts on 13 December 2023 but I am satisfied that she was vulnerable at that time because of a number of factors: she had started at a new school, she was exploring her sexuality and had been bullied about it, she had lost a relative to whom she was close, she was not sleeping well. On top of those matters her mother was in a heightened emotional state because of her view of the father. AZ had cause to reflect and reframe events that had happened in her father’s care. She might well have felt she had to align with her mother and so take a position against her father because of the intense friction between them. I cannot know her thinking at the time but I understand why she felt low, even depressed, and why she decided she did not want to spend time with her father over Christmas. She wanted a period of calm. She was learning from her mother that the emotional turmoil her mother was experiencing and which was doubtless affecting AZ, was his fault. She was being encouraged to believe that incidents in the past, some of which I acknowledge may have distressed her, were examples of child abuse and that her father was abusive towards her. She was looking at him from her mother’s distorted perspective.

[89]For MAZ, the news that AZ had had suicidal thoughts was devastating. It would be very troubling for any parent, including FAZ of course, but, as I have noted, MAZ was particularly sensitised to the issue of self-harm or suicide. At that point MAZ took it upon herself not only to shut FAZ out of AZ’s life but to take important steps in the exercise of her parental responsibility without any consultation. She did not act rationally. She isolated AZ. She escalated concerns to professionals without reflection on the consequences. She put AZ in a position where it would have been easier for her to repeat her mother’s framing of incidents rather than to form her own independent view. She prevented AZ from having any counter-balance to her mother’s perspective.

[90]AZ’s allegations of sexual abuse must be seen in this context. FAZ has denied sniffing AZ’s underwear before deciding whether to put it in the laundry bin. But even if did so, his actions were, at most, insensitive. It is unreasonable to view such conduct, if it occurred, as sexually motivated and there is no indication that AZ considered his actions to be sexual in any way. It is MAZ who decided to include that conduct as one of her allegations under the heading “sexual abuse” within these proceedings. That says a lot about MAZ’s mindset which, I find, influenced AZ’s thinking about her father, in particular his conduct when cuddling her in her bed. I note that on 12 January 2024, when AZ spoke to a social worker, she said that what had happened in her bed had seemed normal to her at the time. Yet, in her later police interview, she repeatedly referred to her father’s actions when cuddling her in bed as making her feel uncomfortable – that she felt at the time that what he was doing was not right. She had asked her father to get into bed to cuddle her and help her get off to sleep. It is now accepted by MAZ that there was nothing sexual in his conduct yet, as is clear to me, for over two years MAZ has framed what he did as sexual abuse. That, after all, is how she has labelled the conduct in her schedule of allegations. Her previous belief that his conduct was sexual abuse has led to AZ framing it in the same way. Everything MAZ did from involving the police, to arranging therapy for trauma suffered because of FAZ’s abuse, reflects her own framing of what she now accepts was innocent conduct. Indeed it was loving conduct by a father trying to help his daughter. Everything MAZ did in late 2023 and in 2024 encouraged AZ to hold the view that she had been abused. Why else would she be prevented from seeing her father, be interviewed by the police and be referred for therapy for trauma?

[91]The evidence does not persuade me that MAZ deliberately concocted the allegations of sexual abuse or instructed AZ what to say to professionals or the police. She genuinely believed that FAZ had abused their daughter. But her anxieties and distrust of FAZ resulted in her adopting a perspective on past events involving FAZ which are untethered from reality. She viewed him as an abuser. She thereby influenced AZ and she was careless about doing so because when AZ started to speak of her father’s conduct as if it were abuse, that suited MAZ’s own narrative. At every step, MAZ reinforced the view that AZ had been the victim of abuse by FAZ. In her desperation to prove the case against FAZ she was sometimes dishonest as demonstrated by the inconsistencies, embellishments and insinuations I have set out at paragraphs 70 to 72 in this judgment.

[92]I find that AZ’s allegations about FAZ touching her over clothing over her genitals came spontaneously from AZ herself during the police interview. But by then AZ’s mindset had been influenced by her mother’s mindset – she was reconsidering everything that happened through the lens of abuse. She was eager to give details to substantiate that framing of her father’s conduct and in her eagerness, she began to imagine that he had done things which, in truth, had not happened. She spoke of being uncomfortable when her father was in bed with her but she had not felt uncomfortable at the time. She began to imagine details that had not in fact happened, such as the placement of his fingers.

[93]Thus, I find that the allegations of sexual abuse made by MAZ are not proved and that it should be made known to all relevant professionals that the court has found that FAZ did not sexually abuse AZ. I have already written AZ a lengthy letter explaining my findings which was passed to her by the Guardian and copies of which have been given to the parents.

[94]Furthermore, I am satisfied that: 94.1. MAZ’s anxieties, over-protectiveness of AZ, and distrust of FAZ have caused her : 94.1.1. To have a distorted view of his conduct and parenting and to view him as a sexually abusive parent. 94.1.2. To view any concerns AZ expressed about her father as evidence of abuse by him including sexual abuse. 94.1.3. To escalate any concerns AZ expressed about her father swiftly to professionals and, sometimes, to exaggerate or embellish what she had been told or what she knew in order to impress upon professionals the seriousness of her concerns. 94.1.4. To isolate AZ from FAZ and GH. 94.1.5. To cause AZ to undergo prolonged therapy for trauma which was, at least in part, to address sexual abuse by her father which did not happen. 94.1.6. To fail to provide or expose AZ to any objective perspective of events involving FAZ. 94.2. MAZ’s views of FAZ and her conduct as set out in the preceding paragraph have influenced AZ and caused her to reframe past events as examples of parental sexual abuse by her father when they were not. 94.3. In the period December 2023 to February 2024, MAZ did not instruct AZ what to say and did not concoct the allegations of sexual abuse, but her conduct encouraged AZ to adopt a narrative that she had been abused by FAZ and she reinforced that belief. 94.4. In the same period MAZ was sometimes dishonest in her reports to professionals in order to build a case that FAZ had been abusive of AZ. 94.5. AZ added inaccurate details to her account of sexual abuse in her interview with the police.

[95]This fact finding hearing was concerned with allegations of sexual abuse only, but it is clear to me that all those involved with AZ’s welfare have to be mindful of similar processes to those just described affecting AZ’s views of incidents of physical abuse by her father.

[96]MAZ no doubt loves her daughter but her conduct has been emotionally and psychologically harmful to her. It has led to a prolonged separation between AZ and FAZ, as well as GH and FAZ’s mother. It will take a great deal of work and commitment to undo that harm, if it can ever be fully repaired.

[97]It was remarkable that after more than two years of entrenchment, it only took MAZ to listen to FAZ for two hours or so for her to jettison her view that he had sexually abused their daughter. I might have found that her U-turn spoke to the fact that her previous entrenched view was not authentic, but instead I find the mother was compelled, through the process of a court hearing, to listen to the father without interruption, as he set out in his own words what had happened. In doing so she opened herself up to possibilities that she had not allowed herself previously to consider. If only she had done that in 2023/2024 much harm may have been avoided.

[98]FAZ has been sorely wronged but he has accepted his own responsibility for past failures of behaviour, communication and collaboration. MAZ now accepts that the allegations she has brought before the court, and which AZ has made against her father, are untrue and/or have been wrongly framed as sexual abuse. Both parents will have to work together in AZ’s best interests if the harm to her caused not only by events since December 2023 but also by the previous years of parental acrimony, is to be healed.