Hampshire County Council v SL & Ors

In care proceedings, the burden remains on the local authority to establish the threshold facts on the balance of probabilities. Seriousness does not create a heightened standard of proof. The inherent probability or improbability of an event is, however, relevant when weighing the evidence, so an inherently unlikely allegation requires stronger evidence.

Where medical evidence establishes repeated non-accidental injuries and the available histories provide no consistent accidental or natural explanation, the court may identify responsibility by evaluating opportunity, consistency of the mechanism, credibility and the evidence excluding other possible perpetrators. Findings concerning one child may establish a risk of harm to other children in the household, but the court must determine separately whether the care order sought is necessary and in the child’s best interests.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning two boys, S and BL, who lived with their mother. The proceedings followed the death of their infant half-sister, C, who had sustained multiple fractures, retinal haemorrhages and fatal head injuries while in the care of her parents.

The father had been acquitted of criminal charges arising from C’s death. In the care proceedings, both parents accepted that BL should be subject to a care order, but the mother opposed a care order for S. The central issues were the circumstances and perpetrators of C’s injuries, whether the threshold criteria were satisfied, and the appropriate orders for the boys.

1. The court applied the balance of probabilities. The serious nature of the allegations did not impose a higher standard of proof, although the inherent improbability of deliberate injury required cogent evidence. The burden remained on the local authority.

2. The medical evidence established multiple fractures caused by considerable force, extensive retinal haemorrhages and separate old and recent head injuries. In the absence of a consistent accidental history or natural explanation, the injuries were non-accidental and had occurred on at least three occasions.

3. The court found that the father inflicted the fatal injury immediately before C’s collapse. His lack of candour, attempts to minimise his conduct and attempts to deflect responsibility were relevant to his credibility. The consistency of the mechanisms, his opportunity to cause the earlier injuries and the absence of evidence implicating the mother or other carers justified the finding that he had caused the earlier injuries also.

4. No culpability was found against the mother. Her conduct towards the local authority was criticised, but she had sought medical assistance for C and had managed the boys appropriately. The threshold was nevertheless satisfied for both boys because S had lived in the household when the injuries occurred and was exposed to emotional harm, while BL would have been at real risk of physical harm had he then been present.

5. A care order was made for BL. A care order for S was refused as intrusive and unnecessary: sufficient access and support could be provided through BL’s care order, and S required a return to stability and normality.