FAZ v MAZ: Family Court finds sexual abuse allegations unproven after mother withdraws during hearing

The Family Court has found unproved allegations of sexual abuse brought by a mother against a father in private law proceedings, in a judgement that examines in detail how a parent's genuine but distorted beliefs can cause serious and lasting harm to a child. The judgement in FAZ v MAZ [2026] EWFC 131, handed down by Mr Justice Poole on 9 June 2026, is published in anonymised form and concerns a girl, AZ, now aged 14, who had no contact with her father, his partner, or her paternal grandmother for over two years while the allegations were being pursued.

The mother, MAZ, withdrew the remaining allegations partway through the five-day fact-finding hearing in April 2026, after hearing the father give oral evidence. She accepted that the father's explanation of how he came to be in his daughter's bed on the occasions complained of was credible and authentic, and that there was no sexual intent. She also acknowledged that the way AZ's account developed in her police interview, particularly towards the end of it, suggested that AZ may have incorporated material from library books about abuse into her recollection of events.

Mr Justice Poole made clear that findings of fact remain for the court and not for the parties, and proceeded to set out his conclusions in full. He found that neither of the two remaining allegations had been proved. The first, that the father had inappropriately touched his daughter's bottom while in her bed, was not established: the father's account, that he would sometimes fall asleep having got into bed at his daughter's request to comfort her and that any contact with her was unintentional and occurred while he slept, was accepted. The second, more serious allegation, was similarly not proved.

The judgement devotes considerable attention to the genesis and development of the allegations. Mr Justice Poole found that MAZ, while genuinely believing that FAZ had abused their daughter, had at times been dishonest in her reports to professionals, exaggerating and embellishing information to build a case against him. He identified specific inconsistencies in her evidence, including accounts of incidents that had escalated significantly between tellings, and an allegation of physical abuse first raised in 2025 concerning an incident said to have occurred when AZ was two years old, despite extensive prior proceedings in 2016 in which no such allegation had been made.

The court found that MAZ's deep anxieties, rooted in her own traumatic experiences, and her entrenched distrust of FAZ had led her to view his conduct through a distorted lens. Her consequent conduct, including involving police and child protection agencies swiftly and without reflection, isolating AZ from her father and his family, and arranging prolonged therapy for trauma said to arise from abuse, had reinforced in AZ the belief that she had been abused. Mr Justice Poole found that AZ had added inaccurate details to her police interview account in a state of mind already shaped by her mother's framing of events.

The judgement is candid about the damage that has resulted. AZ had received extensive therapy for complex post-traumatic stress disorder on the basis of a premise the court has now found to be false. The complete cessation of contact with her father, his partner and her paternal grandmother for over two years occurred on the same false premise. Mr Justice Poole described the outcome as deeply troubling, noting that it was difficult to see how the harm caused could ever be fully repaired.

The court wrote directly to AZ to explain its findings before the judgement was handed down. Both parents were urged to work together in her interests. Further proceedings will address contact arrangements and the appropriate therapeutic and psychological support going forward.

FAZ v MAZ [2026] EWFC 131. Janet Bazley KC and Lucy Sprinz (Blandy and Blandy LLP) for the applicant; Martha Holmes (direct access) for the first respondent; Jessica Lee (NYAS) for the second respondent.