R, S and T (Children), Re

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) ill any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition ls strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

There is listed before me a public law care case in which I am asked to make findings of fact, primarily into allegations of familial sexual abuse. These fall into two parts, first facts sought by the Local Authority, and secondly facts sought by the Mother against the father, primarily of rape and of coercive sexual intercourse with family members. The Mother�s schedule is dated 10 September 2018.

I identify the parties involved thus. There are three children who are the subject of the proceedings, currently in Local Authority foster care under interim orders. R is now 15, S is now 13 years of age and T is now 11 years of age. The Mother is the mother of all three children. She is nearly 35 years of age. Her husband is the father of the two younger children, S and T. The father of R does not have parental responsibility for his son and he plays no part in these proceedings.

The proceedings were issued on 23 March of this year. The 26 week timetable expired on 12 September. A fact finding hearing into the Local Authority allegations of sexual abuse was listed to be heard over seven days, commencing on 2 August. There was no schedule of allegations being made by the Mother against the Father at that stage. Delays have been occasioned, largely because of difficulties obtaining police disclosure during an ongoing investigation into the allegations, and on 5 July I vacated the August hearing and refixed the case to be heard commencing on 15 October.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Re W [2010] UKSC 12 reminds us of the need to strike a balance between the Article 6 requirements of fairness, which normally entails the opportunity to challenge evidence, and the Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life of all involved. There is no longer a presumption, or even a starting point, against children giving evidence. In broad terms the Court has to balance the advantages that will be brought to the determination of the truth and the damage that the giving of evidence by the children may cause to their welfare.