368 Pages of Evidence — But Where Was the Voice of the Children? QR v ST [2026]
JSH LAW | THE CHILD’S VOICE | ENGLAND & WALES
Judgment handed down 14 October 2026 | Legal sources reviewed 26 October 2026
There were 368 pages of evidence in the case. But where, asked the judge, was the voice of the children?
The question in QR v ST [2026] EWFC 300 (B) goes to the heart of family justice. A substantial bundle can still fail to capture what children actually said, who first heard them, the context of their words and whether the court has enough reliable evidence to make findings.
The quick answer
In QR v ST, the Family Court found that the mother had abused the father; it rejected her allegation that he had coached, manipulated or alienated the children; and it found that the separate allegations of abuse against the children had not been proved on the balance of probabilities. That did not amount to a finding that the children were dishonest. Missing original notes, interviews and fuller direct accounts were central to the judge’s assessment. The ruling was a fact-finding decision, not the final welfare order. For parents, the practical lesson is to identify the original source of any child’s disclosure, ask what evidence is missing, consider safe ways to ascertain wishes and feelings, and seek proportionate directions before the evidential window closes.
What happened in QR v ST?
QR and ST were in cross-applications about where two children would live and how time with their parents would be arranged. Following earlier proceedings, the children had been living with their mother and spending time with their father. In October 2025, allegations that the mother had abused them emerged while they were staying with their father; he kept them in his care. The mother denied abusing the children and alleged that the father had manipulated or coached them against her.
In February 2026, Cafcass expressed the need to establish the factual basis of the allegations before a section 7 report. In June the court directed a fact-finding hearing because the disputed matters were sufficiently serious and fundamental to the future welfare and risk decisions. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Richards heard the fact-finding hearing at Nuneaton in October 2026.
At paragraph 14, the judge recorded a 368-page bundle, together with the Family Justice Council’s December 2024 guidance and Re Y [2026] EWFC 38. The mother was a litigant in person and a qualified legal representative was appointed to conduct cross-examination for her. The judgment is an expressly anonymised public judgment; reporting restrictions must be respected.
A crucial procedural point: this was a fact-finding hearing. The judge subsequently invited submissions on next steps, including a Cafcass report and whether a rule 16.4 guardian should be appointed (paragraph 72). There was no final determination of where the children should live in this judgment.
What the court actually found
Three outcomes must be kept separate. It is legally misleading to compress them into a conclusion that the court believed one parent about everything and disbelieved the other about everything.
| Issue | Finding | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Domestic abuse against the father | Proved: the mother subjected the father to the incidents described in paragraph 31. | Does not automatically establish the separate allegations against the children. |
| Coaching or alienating the children | Not proved: the court positively found the father had not coached, manipulated or alienated them (paragraph 40). | Does not automatically prove that every allegation made by a child was true. |
| Separate allegations of harm to the children | Allegations 2–7 were not proved on the evidence before the court (paragraph 71). | Does not establish that the children lied or fabricated their accounts. |
Courts apply the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities. The father bore the burden in relation to his allegations against the children. A failure to prove an allegation is not the same as a positive finding that it was invented. Nor does a police decision to take no further action necessarily answer what happened for family-law purposes.
The judge considered evidence about the absence of previously raised safeguarding concerns, the accounts of a neighbour, the parties’ evidence, and available police material. The court also cautioned that a mental-health diagnosis does not itself justify an inference of abusive parenting without supporting evidence (paragraphs 48–49). That distinction matters because a diagnosis, a reported concern and a judicial finding are not interchangeable.
Paragraph 60: where was the children’s own evidence?
At paragraph 60 the judge asked: “Where is the voice of these children in these very serious allegations said to have been raised by them?” The following paragraphs list specific gaps:
- No ABE interviews: Neither child had undergone an Achieving Best Evidence video interview, despite evidence that the older child had been willing to do so (paragraphs 61–62).
- No body-worn video: Police officers’ bodycam footage from visits to speak with the children was not in evidence (paragraph 63).
- No original handwritten notes: Notes attributed to the children, to which they reportedly referred when speaking with police, had not been disclosed to the court (paragraph 64).
- Missing first-recipient evidence: The father’s current partner, said to have received the initial disclosures, had not provided a statement or oral evidence (paragraph 44).
- Limited summaries: The court had the father’s hearsay account and brief police and social-work summaries but not the full surrounding conversations (paragraph 66).
Critically, the police record referred to alleged inconsistencies and limited detail without making the underlying particulars available to the judge. It was therefore difficult to assess what precisely was inconsistent, why the children said what they said, or how the questions had been put. The judge gave the police assessment some weight, but also recognised the limits of the summaries.
None of this establishes an automatic requirement for an ABE interview, bodycam evidence, or for a child to give evidence in person in every case. Child participation must be managed safely, proportionately and with regard to welfare. The broader lesson is to examine source, context, completeness and reliability rather than mistake the number of pages for the strength of the evidence.
What should an evidence-source audit contain?
| Record | Question | Possible consequence |
|---|---|---|
| First disclosure | Who first heard it, when and in what circumstances? | A later account may omit words or context. |
| Written notes | Are originals, dates, authorship and provenance available? | Attribution and accuracy may be disputed. |
| Professional summary | Is this verbatim evidence, a paraphrase or an opinion? | Hearsay and inference require appropriate weight. |
| Police disclosure | Were relevant retained records considered and lawfully disclosed? | The court may need focused directions. |
In practice, a carefully maintained two-page evidence register can be more useful than hundreds of pages of unindexed information. The register should explain why each gap affects the specific fact to be determined and whether obtaining the record would be safe and proportionate.
How does England and Wales law protect the child’s voice?
1. Welfare and wishes and feelings
Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 makes the child’s welfare paramount when the court determines questions about upbringing. The welfare checklist includes the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, considered in light of age and understanding. The checklist also includes emotional and physical needs, any harm suffered or risked, the likely effect of change, and other statutory matters. Wishes matter greatly, but are not a substitute for the overall welfare assessment.
2. Children should be included appropriately
Practice Direction 12B, the Child Arrangements Programme, provides that children should be central to proceedings. The court should ask whether their wishes and feelings are available or need to be ascertained and how they may be involved. Depending on the circumstances, views may be reported by Cafcass or the local authority, or a child may write to the court or meet the judge appropriately. A meeting with a judge is not the same as giving evidence, and neither should be treated as automatic.
3. Domestic abuse allegations require a fair factual foundation
Practice Direction 12J requires the court to address relevant allegations or evidence of domestic abuse and make suitable safeguarding and case-management decisions. Paragraphs 16–19 address whether fact-finding is necessary and what evidence and directions may be required. The court can consider statements, third-party material, police disclosure, relevant patterns of behaviour and arrangements to enable parties to participate fairly. Paragraphs 21–24 also address welfare reports and separate representation of children.
The finding that the mother abused the father in QR v ST remains important for any eventual welfare and risk analysis, even though the separate allegations against the children were not proved.
4. Separate representation and rule 16.4
Under Family Procedure Rules Part 16, there are circumstances in which a child may become a party and have a children’s guardian. That is a case-specific determination, not the normal entitlement of a parent who disagrees with Cafcass. The judge in QR v ST proposed hearing submissions on whether a guardian should be appointed. The published judgment did not itself appoint one.
Children resisting contact: domestic abuse or alienating behaviour?
These issues must be approached without jumping from a child’s refusal of contact to an accusation against either parent. The Family Justice Council’s December 2024 guidance rejects the notion of a diagnosable “parental alienation syndrome” and emphasises a factual, child-centred investigation into reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent.
In Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38, the President of the Family Division explained that where domestic abuse is alleged, the court must consider the relevant abuse allegations and whether a child’s reaction may be justified, protective or trauma-related before moving to allegations of alienating behaviour. The judge decides the facts; an expert is not there to supplant the court’s fact-finding function.
In QR v ST, the mother’s allegation of coaching was rejected because the court found no persuasive evidence that the father had done so. But the judge explained that the absence of proved coaching did not resolve whether the allegations against the mother were true. There were more possible explanations than the competing narratives advanced by the parents.
What a litigant in person can actually do
Before the fact-finding hearing
- Define the contested issues. Identify each allegation, the response, and why the outcome matters to risk or welfare. Distinguish fact-finding from final child arrangements decisions.
- Identify the primary source. Who heard the child’s words? Is there a verbatim account, original note, recording or dated document?
- Prepare a focused missing-evidence schedule. For each item, say what may exist, who has it, why it matters and what route is appropriate to obtain it.
- Ask for proportionate directions. When necessary, consider an application or case-management request for relevant police or professional disclosure or witness material, subject to relevance, confidentiality and legal powers. Disclosure is not automatic.
- Protect the child. Do not conduct your own repeated interviews, prompt a child, make them rehearse an allegation, or ask them to collect evidence for adult litigation.
- Check participation arrangements. If the child’s voice is absent, identify whether Cafcass assessment, an appropriately managed letter or meeting, or separate representation should be considered.
After fact-finding
Read the schedule of findings carefully. Do not state that allegations were “false” unless that was actually found. Where Cafcass is preparing a welfare report, ensure the officer has the court’s findings or an accurate agreed record and understands the scope of further welfare enquiries. If a report inaccurately attributes words to a child, distinguish the original record from the professional’s interpretation and identify the specific correction or further question needed.
- What issue must the court decide now?
- What precisely are the child’s own words, if ascertainable?
- Who made the original record and in what circumstances?
- What is missing, and why would it matter to the outcome?
- How can the child be heard without avoidable pressure or harm?
- What focused direction, report or procedural step is sought?
Illustrative request for clarification
“I respectfully ask the court to consider whether the original record of the reported disclosure should be identified and, if available and appropriate, disclosed. The current material appears to contain a summary rather than the child’s original account. I make this request to clarify the evidence and context without requiring the child to repeat the account unnecessarily.”
This is an example, not a prescribed form or an assurance that a direction will be made. The existing order, procedural stage, relevance and sensitivity of the material determine the appropriate application and wording.
Two serious cautions: welfare and confidentiality
Child welfare: Repeated questioning of a child can itself be harmful and may affect the reliability of subsequent accounts. Do not press a child to provide evidence, coach them or involve them in adult negotiations. Where there is immediate danger, safeguarding action is urgent and separate from ordinary document-management decisions.
Confidentiality: The published judgment requires the children’s identities and those of their family members to remain protected, including against ‘jigsaw’ identification. A public judgment is not permission to publish private family court papers or identifying details. Sensitive case papers and children’s data must not be uploaded to public AI tools without an appropriate legal and security basis.
Questions parents ask
Does my child have to give evidence in family court?
No. Children’s accounts and wishes may reach the court through several appropriately managed routes. Direct testimony is not the default solution to incomplete evidence and must be evaluated in light of welfare, necessity and possible harm.
Does ‘not proved’ mean a child lied?
No. It means that the burden of proof was not satisfied on the evidence. A finding that a person deliberately fabricated an allegation is a different and more specific finding.
Does a police ‘no further action’ decision prove an allegation is false?
No. Police and prosecution decisions do not themselves decide the family court’s separate factual questions. The family court assesses the evidence under the civil standard and with its own welfare responsibilities.
What if Cafcass only gives a brief summary of my child’s views?
Identify what the report attributes to the child, the context and any primary record, then ask the court to consider a proportionate clarification, further report or other direction if genuinely necessary. A disagreement alone does not automatically justify replacing a professional.
Can I demand a rule 16.4 guardian?
You can explain why the court should consider separate representation, but appointment is case-specific. The court determines whether making the child a party and appointing a guardian is appropriate under the rules.
A child-focused case needs more than a large bundle
JSH Law can help you organise evidence and disclosures, identify gaps, prepare clear chronologies, scrutinise Cafcass or section 7 reports, structure statements and hearing documents, and obtain defined-scope McKenzie Friend support. We cannot promise a particular finding or outcome.
Have your most recent sealed order, hearing date, key report, current deadlines and a brief summary of the issue ready. Do not send sensitive children’s records via an insecure public form.
Primary authorities and related JSH Law reading
- QR v ST [2026] EWFC 300 (B) – National Archives, official judgment (particularly paragraphs 31, 40, 60–72).
- Children Act 1989, section 1 – welfare and checklist.
- Practice Direction 12B – Child Arrangements Programme.
- Practice Direction 12J – Domestic Abuse and Harm.
- Family Procedure Rules Part 16 – children’s representation.
- Family Justice Council, December 2024 alienating-behaviour guidance.
- Re Y [2026] EWFC 38 – modern approach.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!