R (A Child), Re

In care proceedings, the local authority must prove the statutory threshold on the simple balance of probabilities. The seriousness of an allegation or its consequences does not alter that standard.

When medical evidence cannot explain an injury, the court must consider unknown causation. The absence of an established accidental or natural mechanism does not itself prove inflicted injury. Separate injuries should first be assessed on their own evidence. Evidence concerning one injury may then inform another only where that reasoning is probative and avoids circularity.

A baby developed extensive subdural haematomas and was later found to have an undisplaced fracture of the left femur. Following a section 20 agreement, he was cared for within his wider family, and the local authority commenced care proceedings. The proceedings were transferred to the County Court and the fact-finding hearing was conducted by a High Court judge.

The principal issues were whether either injury had probably resulted from trauma inflicted by one or both parents and whether the threshold under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 was established.

1. The care proceedings were dismissed. The local authority had not proved the threshold required by section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. It bore the burden of proving that the significant harm was attributable to care falling below what it was reasonable to expect a parent to provide.

2. Following Re B (Care Proceedings – Standard of Proof), each disputed fact had to be determined on the simple balance of probabilities. Neither the gravity of the alleged conduct nor the seriousness of its consequences altered that standard. The court was required to evaluate the whole evidential picture and make findings where possible, while allowing the burden of proof to determine the result where the evidence did not establish the allegation.

3. In cases of disputed medical causation, the court must resist inferring non-accidental injury merely because experts cannot identify another known mechanism. Unknown causation is a legitimate conclusion rather than a professional or forensic failure. It is a factor in deciding whether the party bearing the burden has established its proposed cause.

4. The neurological evidence made inflicted head injury less probable. The surgical presentation was highly atypical for trauma, the expected associated features were absent, and the experts could not satisfactorily explain the condition. A perinatal event was also less than probable. On the balance of probabilities, the head condition had an unknown aetiology.

5. The evidence concerning the head and leg had to be assessed separately before considering any unifying hypothesis. Although a proven inflicted injury may sometimes inform the assessment of another incident for which only a marginally plausible accidental explanation is advanced, that course was unsafe here. It risked circular reasoning because the head condition was unexplained and inflicted head injury was already less than probable.

6. The femoral fracture was traumatic and occurred while the child was with his parents. Nevertheless, the combination of uncertainty about the force involved, the parents’ insistence on specialist transfer, the favourable social evidence and the judge’s assessment of the father’s credibility prevented a finding of culpable conduct. The fracture was probably accidental, most likely occurring when the child was removed from the baby-walker after hurting himself. The care given was not unreasonable.

The local authority commenced care proceedings after the child left his parents’ care under a section 20 agreement. The proceedings were transferred to the County Court, and approval was subsequently given for the fact-finding hearing to be conducted by a High Court judge. No appeal was involved.