LA v FM & Ors

In care proceedings, findings must be based on evidence and properly supported inferences, applying the balance of probabilities; suspicion and speculation are insufficient. A lie requires careful assessment because it may arise from fear, shame, pressure or loyalty rather than guilt. In adoption cases, the court must evaluate all realistic options, with adoption treated as an exceptional last resort where nothing else will do. A parent’s capacity must include the ability to recognise established risks, accept the court’s findings and formulate a workable safety plan. Where the evidence permits a final, short and purposeful opportunity for a parent to demonstrate those changes, the court may adjourn welfare decisions, provided the delay remains proportionate to the children’s lifelong welfare.

The local authority sought care and placement orders concerning two young children after their older sibling died in circumstances attributed to serious violence by the father. The proceedings also concerned allegations of domestic violence against the mother and the cause of a femur fracture suffered by one child.

The mother denied domestic violence and rejected the possibility that the father caused the older child’s death. The court had to determine the threshold facts, assess future risk and decide whether the children should be rehabilitated to their mother or permanently separated from their birth family.

1. Findings of fact. The burden and standard of proof were governed by Re B [2008] UKHL 35. Findings had to rest on evidence and properly drawn inferences, not suspicion or speculation, in accordance with Re A (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 12. The court found that the mother had suffered domestic violence from the father in April and October or November 2011; that the femur fracture was caused by an accidental fall from the mother’s arms; and that the father inflicted the injuries causing the older child’s death.
2. A lie was not treated as conclusive of guilt. The court considered the possible reasons for lying, including shame, fear, emotional pressure and misplaced loyalty, applying the approach in R v Lucus QB 720 (1981).
3. The threshold criteria were established. The mother had failed to protect the children because she knew the father was capable of violence. It was more likely than not that the older child witnessed the fatal assault and suffered emotional harm.
4. Welfare and adoption. Each child’s welfare was paramount under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The court applied the guidance in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 813: all realistic options required a global evaluation, adoption was a last resort, and the evidence had to address the advantages and disadvantages of each option. The natural parent principle in Re C and B [2001] 1 FLR 611 and Re KD (A Minor) (Ward: Termination of Access) [1988] AC 806 was considered alongside the risk of future harm.
5. The court accepted that safe care required the mother to acknowledge the domestic violence, accept that the father could have caused the older child’s death, accept the findings irrespective of the criminal trial, and produce a full safety plan. Despite professional recommendations for permanent removal, the court granted a final opportunity of no more than three weeks to demonstrate those changes. The welfare decision and any final care or placement orders were adjourned for further submissions and directions.