Mother Ordered to Pay £27,109 After Unproven Sexual Abuse Allegations Against Father: FAZ v MAZ
By Michael Thompson, Founder, Falsely Accused Network | Family Law News & Analysis | 22 October 2026
A significant Family Court judgment has highlighted the consequences of unproven allegations of sexual abuse in disputes involving children, and when a parent may be ordered to contribute towards the legal costs of the person accused.
In FAZ v MAZ (Costs) [2026] EWFC 301, handed down on 19 October 2026, Mr Justice Poole ordered a mother to pay £27,109.75 towards the father’s legal costs after finding that she had acted unreasonably in building and pursuing allegations of sexual abuse against him.
The father claimed £256,667.80, covering his costs up to the end of the fact-finding hearing. The judge summarily assessed the reasonable and proportionate costs of the fact-finding exercise at £108,439 (£40,000 of solicitors’ costs and £50,000 of counsel’s fees, plus VAT and court fees) and ordered the mother to pay 25% of that figure by 13 November 2026.
For parents facing allegations of domestic or sexual abuse in family proceedings, the judgment raises important questions about accountability, how evidence is assessed and the financial consequences of unreasonable litigation conduct.
A Father Separated From His Daughter
The parents married in 2008 and separated in 2015. Their daughter, now 14, lived with her mother and spent time with her father until allegations were made in late 2023. Contact then stopped completely, and the daughter later made allegations of sexual abuse, including in a police interview.
In August 2024, the father applied to vary the existing Child Arrangements Order to restore his relationship with his daughter. In November 2024, the mother applied to end all contact and for an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, which would have stopped the father making further applications without permission for the rest of the daughter’s childhood.
The mother alleged physical, emotional and sexual abuse. The court directed that only the three sexual abuse allegations needed to be decided at a separate fact-finding hearing.
At the start of that hearing, the mother withdrew the first allegation, accepting that the father had simply been sorting the laundry.
During the hearing, she told the court she no longer believed the father had sexually abused their daughter as alleged in the second and third allegations.
In his judgment of 9 June 2026, Mr Justice Poole found that none of the allegations was proved.
The mother’s own applications were withdrawn in September 2026. By then, the father had been cut off from his daughter for well over two years and had spent a very large sum defending himself.
The Court Found Exaggeration and, at Times, Dishonesty
One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the distinction between genuinely believing an allegation and acting reasonably when pursuing it.
The judge did not find that the mother had deliberately invented the allegations or told her daughter what to say. He accepted that she sincerely believed the father had abused their daughter.
That belief did not excuse how she then behaved. The court found that she had been inconsistent in her evidence, had embellished it, had planted the idea in professionals’ minds that the father had a propensity to abuse, and had at times been dishonest in building the case against him. The judge described her view of past events as “untethered from reality”.
The court also found that the mother had influenced her daughter. She reinforced, at every step, the view that the daughter had been abused, and her conduct created the circumstances in which the daughter made the allegations to the police that became the third allegation. The judge was clear that she had not invented that allegation or coached her daughter to make it.
He also found that the mother had been so determined to prove her case that she did not want other possible explanations for her daughter’s distress and behaviour to be explored.
Children must always be listened to when they raise concerns about abuse. Equally, adults have a responsibility not to push an interpretation of events beyond what the evidence supports, or to shut down other explanations.
Genuine Belief Is Not a Complete Defence
The mother argued that she had acted protectively, out of anxiety and genuine concern for her daughter. The court accepted that her initial concerns were understandable. The daughter’s first reports were not fantastical, and it was not unreasonable at that early stage for a parent, or the police and social workers, to be worried.
The unreasonable conduct came afterwards. Following the Court of Appeal in Re E (Children: Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183, the court had to make its own objective assessment of whether her conduct was reasonable, not ask whether she believed it was. The judge found that:
she built a case against the father and framed his behaviour as sexual abuse for over two years;
her pursuit of the first allegation was “wholly unreasonable”;
she opposed disclosure of relevant material, which prolonged the proceedings;
she did not engage with the father’s proposals to resolve matters out of court, including family therapy and mediation; and
she changed her position only towards the end of the fact-finding hearing, although the information available to her had not materially changed in over two years.
The lesson is clear: sincerely believing an allegation does not make every step taken in pursuit of it reasonable.
When Can Costs Be Ordered in Children Cases?
In ordinary civil claims, the losing party usually pays the winner’s costs. In family proceedings that rule does not apply (Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 28.2), and costs orders in cases about children are unusual. They are normally made only where a party’s conduct has been reprehensible or their stance unreasonable.
The judge applied the leading authorities, including Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266, Re E (Children: Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183, Re T (Children) (Care Proceedings: Costs) [2012] UKSC 36 and Re S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 10. In Re E, where a mother had made extreme sexual abuse allegations, the Court of Appeal ordered her to pay half the father’s costs.
In FAZ v MAZ, the judge deliberately avoided describing the mother’s conduct as reprehensible, but found it unreasonable. That opened the door to a costs order, assessed on the standard basis. He declined to order her to pay everything because:
the second and third allegations came from the daughter, who was old enough to understand what she was reporting;
as a mother, she was entitled to be anxious, to act protectively and to make sure the reports were properly examined;
some of her early actions were misguided but not malicious; and
the father’s past conduct had at times been insensitive and uncooperative, and contributed to the breakdown in trust. After the allegations arose, however, the judge found the father had acted reasonably and tried to resolve matters.
The judge also weighed the effect of a costs order on the money available to support the daughter, and on relations between the parents.
This distinction matters. An allegation not being proved does not, by itself, entitle the accused parent to their costs. Unreasonable conduct must be established, and the court will look at all the circumstances.
The Enormous Financial Burden of Defending Serious Allegations
One of the most striking features of the case is the scale of the father’s legal bill: £256,667.80 to the end of the fact-finding hearing. His barristers told the court he could only afford representation because his partner supported him.
The judge found the claim disproportionate. With only three allegations to decide, an experienced junior barrister could have handled the case alone, so instructing a King’s Counsel as well was a disproportionate expense. Even with a costs award, the father is left carrying most of the cost himself.
For many parents, spending on this scale is simply impossible. At the Falsely Accused Network, we believe this raises an important question: how many parents facing serious but unfounded allegations cannot challenge them effectively because they cannot afford the help needed to navigate complex family court proceedings?
The Damage Goes Beyond Financial Costs
The father lost contact with his daughter for more than two years. Work has now begun, led by an independent expert, to rebuild her relationships with her father, his partner and his mother. The judge described the early signs as promising, but warned that there may be profound difficulties ahead.
He also observed that the father had been “sorely wronged”, while noting that the father had accepted responsibility for his own past failures. Both parents will need to work together if the harm to their daughter is to heal.
Prolonged litigation founded on unreasonable conduct can leave consequences that last long after the court has delivered its judgment.
Protecting Genuine Victims While Ensuring Fairness to the Accused
This judgment must not be misrepresented as discouraging parents from reporting genuine concerns. Mr Justice Poole expressly said that a parent with reasonable grounds for alleging sexual abuse should not be put off by fear of a costs penalty if the allegations are not proved. He also acknowledged that many abusive parents have not been ordered to pay costs when findings were made against them.
Children who disclose possible abuse must be taken seriously, and allegations must be investigated fairly. But safeguarding also requires objectivity. Concerns should not be strengthened through exaggeration, dishonest reporting or selective presentation of evidence, and a parent’s sincere belief cannot replace the court’s job of deciding what the evidence actually shows.
The interests of genuine victims and falsely accused parents are not opposed. Both depend on a justice system that assesses allegations carefully, reaches evidence-based decisions and responds appropriately to unreasonable conduct.
What Should Parents Facing Unfounded Allegations Take From This Judgment?
Preserve relevant evidence. Keep records of communications, court orders, professional reports and anything else that may help the court establish what happened.
Respond calmly and factually. Deal with allegations through evidence and the proper court process, not personal attacks or retaliation.
Raise inconsistencies properly. Where evidence appears contradictory, exaggerated or inaccurate, raise it through the court process.
Show reasonable conduct. The father’s offers of mediation and family therapy counted in his favour. Courts notice who tries to resolve matters and who refuses.
Be realistic about costs. Costs orders in children cases are rare and never automatic, so take legal advice before applying. If you are representing yourself, note that under the 2010 Practice Guidance on McKenzie Friends, fees paid to a McKenzie Friend generally cannot be recovered from the other party.
Above all, the central objective of children proceedings remains the welfare of the child.
Falsely Accused Network: Our View
We welcome the court’s recognition that unreasonable conduct in pursuing serious allegations can have consequences. Allegations of abuse must always be taken seriously, but seriousness must never be confused with proof.
A person accused of abuse is entitled to a fair process, an impartial assessment of the evidence and a real opportunity to challenge the allegations. Where a parent exaggerates evidence, acts dishonestly or unreasonably prolongs proceedings, it is right for the court to consider the consequences.
The judgment also exposes a wider concern about access to justice. This father could fund extensive representation with his partner’s support. Many parents facing similar allegations cannot. And while the costs award is a measure of accountability, it does not give back the years lost between father and daughter or repay most of what he spent.
For us, the principle is straightforward: protect children, investigate allegations properly, treat both parties fairly and hold unreasonable litigation conduct to account. These aims should reinforce one another, not compete.
Need Support With Family Court Proceedings?
The Falsely Accused Network provides privately funded family court support to parents across England and Wales, including those facing disputed allegations of domestic abuse, difficulties with child arrangements and complex court proceedings.
Our McKenzie Friend services can help you understand the court process, prepare documents and navigate proceedings, within the limits of the McKenzie Friend role. If you are facing allegations you dispute, or are struggling to keep a relationship with your children, book a free initial call at www.falselyaccusednetwork.co.uk.
Falsely Accused Network Ltd provides family court support and access to relevant professionals. This article is general information and commentary and is not legal advice.
Legal References
FAZ v MAZ (Costs) [2026] EWFC 301, Mr Justice Poole, 19 October 2026: caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/301
FAZ v MAZ (Private Law: Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Child) [2026] EWFC 131, 9 June 2026
Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266
Re E (Children: Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183
Re S (A Child) (Father’s Costs of Appeal) [2015] UKSC 10
Re T (Children) (Care Proceedings: Costs) [2012] UKSC 36
Family Procedure Rules 2010, rules 28.1 and 28.2
Practice Guidance: McKenzie Friends (Civil and Family Courts) (July 2010)
Comments