Care proceedings - parent making statements in evidence denying allegations of violence but refusing to give oral evidence - inference to be drawn by court

In re O and another (Children: evidence in care proceedings): Fam D (Mr Justice Johnson): 14 August 2003

Care proceedings were commenced under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, after a local authority learned of allegations that a mother had been violent towards B, one of her two children.

The mother denied the allegations and, instead, her other child, A, claimed that he had injured B.

The children were represented by separate solicitors.

Although the mother made two statements denying the allegations, she refused to give oral evidence at the proceedings.

The district judge, after considering a number of factors supporting and discrediting the allegations, decided that the allegations were true.

He attached no weight to the mother's statements and the mother appealed.

Jane Hoyal (instructed by Hornby & Levy) for the mother; Dermot Casey (instructed by HCL Hanne & Co) for the local authority; Tim Hussein (instructed by HE Thomas & Co) for A; Monica Ford (instructed by Michaels & Co, Chatham) for B.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that, as a general rule, where a parent declined to answer questions or give evidence in care proceedings, the court ought usually to draw the inference that any allegations against the parent were true; that in cases concerning children there was no room for the 'no comment' interview found in criminal cases; and that the district judge had not needed to consider the truth of the allegations in such depth, since unless there was some sensible reason to the contrary, the mother's failure to give evidence should have been determinative of the allegations.