A woman who made a series of groundless sex abuse allegations about her ex-partner has been barred from seeing their four-year-old daughter.
A High Court judge made the ruling after she decided that the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had caused ‘significant harm’ to the little girl.
Ms Justice Russell said the woman had made ‘persistent and unsubstantiated’ allegations about the youngster being sexually abused by her father.
The judge said the little girl had been ‘repeatedly subjected to intimate examinations, solely at the behest of her mother’ and been prohibited from having an ‘uninhibited relationship’ with her father.
She said the youngster’s early years had been destroyed by her mother’s ‘irrational’ behaviour.
Ms Justice Russell had analysed the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London in November and has revealed her decision in a written ruling published on a website.
The judge said the family involved could not be identified.
She specified that a nanny had helped care for the girl and that the woman had a link to Israel.
The little girl had lived with her mother after her parents separated.
Two years ago, after sex abuse allegations were ruled to be unfounded, another judge had decided that the youngster should move to live with her father.
When viewed as a whole the harm caused to this child by her mother was significant
– Ms Justice Russell
Arguments about what contact the woman should have with the child had subsequently begun.
Earlier this year a family court judge had decided that the woman should be able to see her daughter.
But the man had mounted a High Court appeal and Ms Justice Russell sustained his challenge.
‘When viewed as a whole the harm caused to this child by her mother was significant,’ said Ms Justice Russell.
‘Not only was she found to have repeatedly subjected to intimate examinations, solely at the behest of her mother, she was prevented from having uninhibited relationship with her father as an infant.
‘On any view, the repeated invasive intimate examinations … were in themselves abusive.’
She added: ‘(The little girl) is a young and vulnerable child whose first few years of life were blighted by her mother’s irrational, abusive and harmful behaviour.
‘The courts can and should consider ordering no contact when the child’s welfare and safety demand it.’