Houston & Houston

The case of *Houston & Houston* concerned allegations of sexual abuse made by a mother against her estranged husband, the father of their children. The mother alleged that her children had disclosed inappropriate sexual touching and behaviour by the father, and she expressed a genuine concern for their future safety if left in his unsupervised care. The father, who suffered from a disability, consistently denied the allegations.

The court was required to determine the veracity of the mother's allegations of sexual abuse and, consequently, the appropriate arrangements for the children's contact with their father. Key legal issues included assessing the reliability of the children's alleged disclosures, the potential for coaching or suggestion, the significance of the children's presentation and behaviour, and the corroboration of the mother's claims. The court also had to consider the father's denials and his overall profile in relation to the likelihood of such abuse occurring.

The court applied general principles regarding child sexual abuse, acknowledging that while such behaviour is abhorrent and uncommon, it does occur. It considered the susceptibility of young children to suggestion and exaggeration, while also recognising their inherent unlikelihood of fabricating clear allegations against a trusted parent. The court found the mother to be a credible witness, whose conduct throughout the proceedings appeared consistent with genuine maternal concern. While some alleged disclosures were equivocal, the court noted that specific claims of genital touching and pain, if true, were strongly indicative of abuse. Expert evidence suggested the language used by the children was age-appropriate and not necessarily indicative of coaching. Despite the father's denials and the children's occasional refusal to repeat allegations, the court was inclined to believe that the children may have been exposed to inappropriate touching and sexual behaviour by their father.

Given the gravity of the allegations and the potential risk of future abuse, the court determined that any ongoing contact between the children and their father must be supervised. The court noted that while a trusted relative was suggested as a supervisor, this proposition had not been properly canvassed or supported by evidence during the trial.