A and B (Minors)(Investigation of alleged abuse) (No.1)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1995 |
| Date | 1995 |
| Court | Family Division |
WALL, J
Child – alleged sexual abuse – very young child – no physical evidence of abuse – interviews of child – nature of interviews and approach of interviewers of crucial importance – essential to distinguish between interviews for the purpose of investigation, assessment and therapy.
The parents met in 1986 and were married in January 1987. They had two children, both girls, who were born in July 1987 and December 1990.
In early December 1988 the mother told social services that the father had flicked the elder girl's genitalia with his finger and had stared at the child's genital area; and that from time to time the child had red marks on the vulval skin. The child was medically examined and nothing untoward was found.
In March 1992 the mother left the matrimonial home taking both children with her. Whilst staying at a women's refuge the mother told one of the workers that the child had said that when she was in the bath with the father he would get hold of her hand and put it against her genitals; also that the child had said that once, when she was in the bedroom, he had asked her to "bite his willy". Social services were informed and a social worker was appointed to work with the family ("the first social worker").
On 16 April 1992 the mother commenced divorce proceedings. In her affidavit of that date she alleged, inter alia, that the father might have sexually abused the elder girl.
The father denied the allegation of sexual abuse and in May 1992 he issued an application for contact with the children.
As a result of the mother's allegation of sexual abuse, the elder girl was medically examined on 2 June 1992. Nothing abnormal was found. The first social worker and a woman police officer interviewed the child on 10 June and again on 6 July 1992. The interviews were video recorded. Nothing relating to the issue of sexual abuse emerged at either of these two interviews but the mother alleged that the child made statements indicating abuse after the medical examination on 2 June and after the first interview on 10 June.
On 31 July 1992 the first social worker interviewed the child on her own. At that interview, which was also video recorded, the child said that on one occasion the father had poked her genitalia and put his penis, which was "hanging down" in her mouth.
Anatomically explicit dolls were used at all three interviews. The social worker was extremely inexperienced and had not received appropriate training in interviewing young children about alleged abuse. It appeared that the woman police officer also had not been properly trained in that respect.
On 19 August 1992 the social worker referred the child to Great Ormond Street Hospital as a child who had been sexually abused by her father.
In August 1992 the mother left the refuge and went to live in rented accommodation in the area of another local authority. On 10 September 1992 a social worker was allocated to the family by that local authority ("the second social worker").
The elder girl first attended Great Ormond Street Hospital on 8 October 1992 for a preliminary discussion between the mother, a child psychotherapist, and Ms Tranter, a psychiatric social worker who was a highly experienced interviewer of children. The child psychotherapist subsequently saw the child for assessment on three occasions. During these sessions the child was clearly unwilling to talk about her father. She did not communicate anything directly about him except one brief statement that he had hurt her. The child psychotherapist commented that the child's reactions were not uncommon in children who had been sexually abused and stated that she would need help in understanding and accepting boundaries around sexual touching and sexual curiosity.
On 25 January 1993 the child was interviewed by Ms Tranter. During that interview the child said that the father had touched her between the legs with his hand and hurt her. The child made no reference to any penile contact until, towards the end of the interview, the mother was brought in. Whilst the mother was present the child, in answer to questions, indicated that the father had touched her genital area with his penis. In the course of an interim report dated 9 March 1993 Ms Tranter stated that the interview showed that the child had clearly indicated inappropriate sexualized touching of her vaginal area by the father and some inappropriate contact between the father's penis and the child's genital area. Ms Tranter went on to state that there was no reason to doubt the veracity of the child's disclosures.
Three distinguished child psychiatrists were involved in the case: Dr Bentovim of Great Ormond Street Hospital; Dr Wolkind instructed by the Official Solicitor; and Dr Dennehy instructed by the father.
Drs Wolkind and Dennehy criticized the three interviews in June and July 1992 and Dr Bentovim agreed with most of the criticisms of the other two doctors. Dr Wolkind pointed out that discussions had clearly taken place between the mother and the child between the second and third interviews. He also pointed out that, throughout all three interviews, when the child spoke of the father there was no hint of fear or anxiety and that this should be contrasted with the child's behaviour and attitude when seen by the child psychotherapist at Great Ormond Street Hospital in October and November 1992 and January 1993.
Dr Bentovim expressed the view that Ms Tranter's interview of the child was not a pressurized, forced, or inappropriate leading approach to the child. Both Dr Wolkind and Dr Dennehy were highly critical of the interview and were of opinion that the child was put under considerable pressure, that leading questions were asked, and that the child was confused and distressed.
In April and May 1993 the child attended five group therapy sessions at which, on two occasions at those sessions, when the group was asked if anyone had touched their private parts, the child stated that her father had done so. Dr Bentovim and Ms Tranter were of opinion that this confirmed their diagnosis of abuse. Neither Dr Dennehy nor Dr Wolkind thought that any probative value could be placed on the child's behaviour.
In arriving at their opinion that the child had been sexually abused by the father, Dr Bentovim and Ms Tranter relied upon the accuracy of information provided by the mother as to what she alleged she had seen and what she alleged the child had told her. However, there was evidence from the second social worker, who had observed the mother's behaviour between September 1992 and March 1994, that on occasions the mother's thought process was disordered and she was unable to discriminate between reality and imagination.
The mother's consultant psychiatrist said that the mother had a tendency to suffer from
depressive responses to environmental pressures and to develop paranoid feelings during such phases. Further, if the second social worker's evidence was accurate, the doctor accepted that in such phases the mother might suffer from transient psychotic episodes when she was deluded; also, that during a depressive episode she might interpret innocent acts as malign.
In his evidence, Dr Wolkind agreed with the evidence of the (second) social worker and the mother's consultant psychiatrist that the mother had a tendency to confuse experiences which occurred to her: fantasy and reality became mixed. Further, Dr Wolkind said that the circumstances were such that there was a real danger that the mother's distorted sense of reality had been transmitted to the child so that it would be very easy for the child to begin to believe in events which had not in fact occurred.
At a hearing on 14 June 1993 a circuit judge transferred the case to the High Court and made an order reintroducing contact between the child and the father. The contact was supervised by the second social worker and the child had her first resumed contact period with the father on 31 August 1993. The contact took place at the home of the paternal grandparents. The child's younger sister was also present. The social worker described that period of contact as entirely successful, the child being at ease and happily playing with the father. Subsequent contact visits were equally successful.
Held – (1) This application by the father for contact with his children raised issues of whether the elder girl was sexually abused by the father, whether the investigation of alleged sexual abuse was properly handled, and whether the child was properly handled by the various authorities and experts. It also received a fundamental disagreement between distinguished child psychiatrists on the methodology of the clinical investigation. The facts of the case raised the important issue of the credibility of the mother's statements. It was a notable feature of the case that the allegation of sexual abuse derived initially from what the mother believed might have occurred and from what the mother said the child had said to her. The allegation was, therefore, inextricably linked to the reliability of the mother's character and personality as an informant. The assessment at Great Ormond Street Hospital by Dr Bentovim and Ms Tranter was based on an uncritical assessment of the mother as an accurate informant. However, the evidence of the second social worker and the medical evidence was that the mother suffered from transient psychotic episodes when she was deluded and that she could confuse experiences which occurred to her so that fantasy and reality became mixed. Consequently, the mother was not a reliable witness and most of the information about the child and the father's alleged abuse of her which derived from the mother was itself unreliable.
(2) The three video interviews in June and July 1992 by a social worker, together with a woman police officer on the first two occasions, were extremely poor interviews in which there were frequent breaches of the guideline set out in the Report of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re W (Children)
... ... which the appeal comes) had to face serious allegations of sexual abuse (the rape of his step daughter then aged 14) without legal representation ... 8 to 11 of the local authority's revised schedule relate to the alleged sexual relationship between the appellant and ISW. They read as follows:- ... ...
-
SW and another v Portsmouth City Council and Others; Re W (children) (concurrent care and criminal proceedings)
...an appropriate share of the court’s resources. Cases referred to in judgmentsA and B (Minors) (No 1) (Investigation of Alleged Abuse), Re[1995] 3 FCR 389. A and B (Minors) (No 2) (Evidence and Procedure), Re[1995] 3 FCR 449, [1995] 1 FLR B v Torbay Council [2007] 1 FLR 203. Clarke-Hunt v Ne......
-
Re N (Child Abuse: Evidence)
...14 1.The mother was present and participating. I agree with Wall J. in Re: A & B (Minors) (No.1) (Investigation of alleged abuse) [1995] 3 FCR 389 at 409B: "from a forensic viewpoint, para.12.35 of the Cleveland Report" (the unsuitability of having a parent present at an interview), "remain......
-
Re A and B (Minors) (No 2) (Evidence and Procedure)
...1991, rr 4.14 and 4.15. RSC Ord 38, r 13. Cases referred to in judgment:A and B (Minors) (No 1) (Investigation of Alleged Abuse), Re[1995] 3 FCR 389. B v B (Minors: Residence and Care Disputes)[1994] 2 FCR G (Children's Case: Instruction of Experts), Re[1994] 2 FCR 106. Norwich Pharmacal Co......
-
Finding that a Child is at Risk from Sexual Abuse:Re H (Minors)(Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof)
...(London: Police Research Group, 1996) 37.52 See for example Re A and B (Minors) (No 1) (Investigation of Alleged Abuse) [1995] 3 FCR 389,444–445.53 D. Howe, ‘Child Abuse and the Bureaucratisation of Social Work’ (1992) 40(3) The SociologicalReview 490; J. Francis, ‘Hope For the Future’ (199......