The High Court rejected allegations that a father sexually abused his eldest child, answering in the negative all six factual questions set for a preliminary hearing in his appeal against a Circuit Court order refusing access to his children.
Mr Justice Henry Abbott’s judgment, delivered on 21 June 2013, concerns a preliminary issue in the father’s appeal. The appeal was against the Circuit Court’s 26 June 2010 order refusing access. The High Court had directed that the mother bear the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, on questions including whether an event occurred, whether it was sexual abuse, and whether there was another explanation.
The allegations followed two disclosures attributed to the eldest child, identified as J., and an injury in October 2008 that the father said was accidental. A specialist assessment unit at St Louise’s concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, J. had given a credible account of sexual abuse and that the father was responsible. The father disputed that assessment. St Clare’s Unit found no evidence of sexual abuse. The judgment records that gardaí had been informed of the mother’s allegations.
Two further experts reviewed the assessments and underlying material. The mother’s expert said unwanted rough touching or tickling may have occurred but found insufficient evidence that the adult’s behaviour was sexually motivated. The father’s expert criticised the St Louise’s methodology and conclusions. The judge also viewed interview recordings and heard evidence from the parties and other witnesses.
The judge found that the allegations were not fraudulent creations by the mother and her family. He considered that repeated conversations and family conflict could have influenced J.’s account, without the family deliberately inventing it. He found that the father’s relationship with J. was close and affectionate but not unhealthy or inappropriate, and rejected the suggestion that the photograph of him supporting her as a baby showed inappropriate or sexually motivated behaviour.
The judgment’s conclusion was limited to the preliminary questions: the court answered all six in the negative. It does not state the outcome of the father’s appeal against the Circuit Court’s refusal of access, or make a new access order.