The District Court refused a father’s application to vary an existing access order, finding on the evidence that he had sexually abused his daughter. It concluded that renewed access would be contrary to the child’s welfare and that there was a real likelihood of future abuse.
The decision, dated 18 May 2009, followed a hearing on 8 May under section 12 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. The father sought to resume contact with Child 1, who had not seen him since February 2008. He proposed that any contact be supervised. The mother opposed the application, citing the child’s distress and the sexual abuse unit’s assessment. The father denied abusing the child and challenged that assessment.
The court considered oral and documentary evidence, including the assessment report, which concluded on the balance of probabilities that the child had been sexually abused and identified her father. The judge found that the child had described repeated incidents and that her distress during interviews limited how much more she could explain. The father offered a different account of one showering incident, saying he had washed the child after she soiled herself. The judge rejected that explanation.
The court also considered the father’s 2005 conviction for possessing child pornography and his placement on the Sex Offenders Register. It treated those matters as relevant to its assessment of the evidence, alongside the child’s reported behaviour, disclosures and distress. The judge found that the father had sexually abused the child, while noting that no one had observed him acting inappropriately with her.
In deciding access, the court said the child’s welfare was paramount and her wishes had to be meaningfully considered. It refused the application, finding that access was not in her best interests and that there was a real likelihood of further abuse.
A separate complaint under section 5 of the Courts (No. 2) Act 1986, alleging breach of the access order, had been withdrawn. The court nevertheless addressed the circumstances: it found the mother blameless, noting the father had agreed not to see the child during the investigation and that the complaint was brought more than six months after the alleged breach. It made no finding of criminal liability on that withdrawn complaint.