pandQFC201503
The mother and her partner had accused many people of the satanic ritual abuse of her children. The children had since retracted their complaints.
Held: The complaints by the children had been prompted and manufactured by the mother’s partner and the mother. None of the allegations, after substantial and careful investigation, were proved true. The mother and her partner had caused immense harm to both the children and the many people they had falsely accused, and had made that damage continuing by the publication, in probable contempt of court, of many details about the case. Those persisting with the allegations were acting either maliciously or foolishly.
Pauffley J summarised her conclusions: ‘Neither child has been sexually abused by any of the following – RD, teachers at CP School H. the parents of students at that school, the priest at the adjacent church, teachers at any of the H or H schools, members of the Metropolitan Police, social workers employed by the London Borough of X, officers of Cafcass or anyone else mentioned by Ms D or Mr C.
The children’s half brother, his father and stepmother – X and Y D – are likewise exonerated of any illicit or abusive acts involving the children.
There was no satanic or other cult at which babies were murdered and children were sexually abused.
All of the material promulgated by Ms Draper now published on the internet is nothing other than utter nonsense.
The children’s false stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is the most accurate way to describe what was done by Mr C in collaboration with Ms D.
Both children were assaulted by Mr C by being hit with a metal spoon on multiple occasions over their head and legs, by being pushed into walls, punched, pinched and kicked. Water was poured over them as they knelt semi-clothed.
The long term emotional and psychological harm of what was done to the children is incalculable. The impact of the internet campaign is likely to have the most devastating consequences for P and Q.’
Pauffley J
[2015] EWFC 26
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – In In Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) CA 19-May-2004
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P said that in abuse cases, evidence: ‘cannot be evaluated in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases has to have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an . .
Cited – In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL 11-Jun-2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
Cited – In re W (Children) (Family proceedings: Evidence) (Abuse: Oral Evidence) SC 3-Mar-2010
The court considered the approach to be taken when considering whether to order a child’s attendance at court in care proceedings. It was argued that the starting point of assuming that a child should not attend, failed to respect the human right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, News
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.544927