In Re B

The House of Lords was asked to determine the standard of proof in care proceedings for children under the Children Act 1989. The case involved allegations of sexual abuse against a father, Mr. B, by his teenage daughter, R. The trial judge was unable to conclude whether the allegations were true or not, but found there was a real possibility that they were. The children's guardian sought to overturn previous case law which held that a likelihood of future harm must be based on facts proved on the balance of probabilities, not a real possibility. The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the previous case law. The key reasons were:

1. The threshold criteria in section 31(2) of the Children Act is there to prevent unjustified intervention in families. Allowing decisions based on unproven allegations would defeat this purpose.

2. The standard of proof in care proceedings is the simple balance of probabilities, not a "heightened" standard. The seriousness of the allegations or consequences should not affect this.

3. Splitting the fact-finding and welfare stages of the hearing could lead to inconsistent decisions and missed information. The same judge should hear the whole case.

4. Relying on unproven allegations would not be proportionate interference with the family's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In summary, the House of Lords reaffirmed that care orders cannot be based on unproven allegations of harm. Facts must be proved on the balance of probabilities before a court can conclude that a child is likely to suffer significant harm in the future.