The Dublin Circuit Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that allegations of sexual abuse made by a child, identified as LD, against her father, DE, were true. The court adjourned the access issue for a section 47 report. After receiving that report, which said resuming access was contraindicated at that time, DE withdrew his access application. The court said no further order was required.
In a judgment dated 18 March 2015, Judge Keenan Johnson said the proceedings concerned DE’s applications for guardianship and access under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, and custody if necessary. The central issue discussed in the judgment was whether the allegations were true, which the judge had to decide on the civil standard of proof.
The judgment records that LD disclosed alleged abuse to her maternal grandmother in July 2013. She later described alleged incidents in interviews with gardaí and a child sexual abuse assessment team at Temple Street Children’s Hospital. That team considered her account credible. DE denied the allegations. The judgment also records that a medical examination on 15 July 2013 found no evidence of abuse.
The judge criticised aspects of the interviews and assessment process, including the number of interviews and the absence of what he considered adequate reality-checking. He said these criticisms were not criticisms of LD. He considered the evidence, including inconsistencies in the accounts and expert evidence, and concluded he was not satisfied that the allegations were true. The judgment expressly distinguishes that civil finding from the decision not to prosecute: it says the Director of Public Prosecutions decided there should be no prosecution and that a criminal case would not prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
The court did not decide at that stage whether access should resume. The judge said the father-daughter relationship had seriously broken down and that LD’s welfare required further consideration. He ordered an adjournment for a section 47 report to advise on access, with recommendations guided by LD’s best interests. He said access might still be refused for the present, even though the allegations had not been established.
An addendum records that the court later received the report on 16 November. It advised that resuming access was then contraindicated and recommended a four-stage process. DE withdrew his access application, so the court made no further order. The judgment’s addendum also called for reform of the system for investigating child sexual abuse allegations, including fewer, earlier interviews by a multidisciplinary team.