Court of Appeal clarifies evidential standards in child protection proceedings

The Court of Appeal's recent judgement in H (Children) (Findings of Fact), Re [2025] EWCA Civ 993 establishes crucial precedents for evaluating evidence in complex child protection proceedings. Delivered on 28 July 2025, the decision addresses appeals by a mother and maternal uncle challenging adverse factual findings made by Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia in the Family Court.

The case originated in November 2023 when care proceedings commenced under the Children Act 1989 following concerns about two children, H and R, who were deemed at risk of significant harm due to their parents' volatile relationship and mental health difficulties. Following an eight-day hearing in March 2025, the trial judge made extensive adverse findings against the parents and maternal uncle, CH, encompassing serious allegations of abuse.

The appellate court's analysis centred on the trial judge's evaluation of evidence, particularly testimony from H, who had a documented history of making false allegations against various individuals. The Court emphasised the necessity for careful questioning of children in such proceedings, noting that ambiguous or leading inquiries could compromise the reliability of their statements.

Critical scrutiny was applied to several aspects of the case, including the methodology employed during H's interviews and the foster mother's approach to documenting allegations. The judgement acknowledged the controversial nature of specific allegations, particularly claims concerning CH at a Halloween party in 2023, highlighting judicial concerns about conflating the volume of allegations with their veracity—a significant consideration when dealing with vulnerable children.

The Court granted permission to appeal on 2 July 2025, expressing concern about unacceptable delays that had characterised the proceedings. Given the children's welfare implications, particularly against a backdrop of historical family abuse, the judges stressed that findings should rest upon thorough and clear evidential evaluation rather than assumptions derived from familial abuse histories.

The appellate judgement ultimately set aside several findings against CH and MP, citing concerns over the evidential weight attributed to H's vague yet serious allegations. However, other findings regarding inappropriate behaviour observed during foster care were upheld, demonstrating the Court's nuanced approach to different categories of evidence.

This decision establishes important principles for similar cases involving contested child welfare matters. The judgement underscores the imperative for courts to ensure findings are grounded in sound evidential foundations, whilst recognising the vulnerabilities of all parties involved. The Court's emphasis on careful case management reflects the judicial priority of navigating these emotionally charged proceedings with appropriate rigour.

The decision's implications extend beyond immediate case law, providing a framework for handling sensitive allegations in familial disputes concerning child welfare. The judgement clarifies that whilst protecting children remains paramount, this protection must be achieved through robust evidential analysis rather than assumptions based on allegation patterns or family histories.

Particularly significant is the Court's recognition that children's testimony, whilst deserving careful consideration, must be evaluated within proper procedural frameworks. The decision reinforces that interview methodologies and documentation practices can materially affect the reliability of evidence, requiring judicial scrutiny of such processes.

The case also highlights the tension between expeditious case resolution and thorough evidential evaluation. The Court's criticism of procedural delays whilst simultaneously requiring comprehensive evidential analysis reflects the complex balancing act required in child protection proceedings.

Looking forward, this judgement provides clarity on evidential standards expected in contested care proceedings. The decision suggests that courts will increasingly scrutinise not merely the content of allegations but the processes through which such allegations are gathered and presented. This represents a sophisticated approach to child protection that acknowledges both the paramount importance of child welfare and the necessity for procedural fairness.

The implications of H (Children) will undoubtedly influence practice across family courts, providing guidance on managing cases where historical allegations intersect with immediate child protection concerns. The decision reinforces that effective child protection requires not merely good intentions but robust legal frameworks ensuring that interventions are both necessary and proportionate based on reliable evidence.