E (A Child), Re

When assessing the interim threshold for a new child, a court may rely on findings concerning injuries to another child where the evidence forms part of a wider pattern or course of conduct. The narrow rule concerning a single unexplained injury and an unidentified perpetrator does not govern every case involving a pool of possible perpetrators. Multiple injuries over a period, the household context, and a parent’s failure to recognise serious distress or seek professional help may together provide reasonable grounds for believing that the new child is at risk of significant harm through a lack of reasonable parental care. An interim care order does not determine the child’s permanent future; the care plan should address support, contact and rehabilitation.

The mother appealed against an interim care order made for M, born seven days before the first-instance hearing. Earlier care proceedings concerning M’s two older siblings had established that C had sustained bruising and multiple rib fractures. The findings did not identify which parent caused the injuries, but later clarifications indicated excessive adult force and that the mother had failed to recognise the child’s distress and its seriousness. The mother argued that the findings could not establish a sufficient risk to M because she had not been identified as the perpetrator and the case fell within the single-incident principle in Re S-B. The central issue was whether the findings provided reasonable grounds for believing that the substantive significant-harm threshold was met.

1. Appeal dismissed. McFarlane LJ delivered the judgment, with Briggs LJ agreeing.
2. The Court applied the distinction recognised in Re S-B [2010] 1 AC 678 and Re J (care proceedings: possible perpetrators) [2013] UKSC 9. A true one-off or whodunnit case, where an injury is established but the perpetrator cannot be identified and there are no other adverse findings, must be distinguished from a case involving multiple injuries, a course of conduct, relevant household circumstances, and evidence about the caregiving abilities of the adults.
3. The judge’s earlier fact-finding material, read with her subsequent clarifications, provided that wider context. C had suffered 12 rib fractures and bruising at numerous sites over several weeks. The injuries involved excessive force on several occasions. Although neither parent was identified as the sole perpetrator, the judge found that the mother had failed to recognise the child’s distress, appreciate its significance, or refer the matter to professionals.
4. Under section 38 of the Children Act 1989, the interim threshold required reasonable grounds for believing that the substantive section 31 threshold would be established. The completed fact-finding findings supplied that basis. A parent need not be identified as the person who inflicted the earlier injuries where the evidence independently supports a finding of inadequate parental care and a risk of significant harm to the later child.
5. The Court added that the interim care plan should focus on the quality of care, support for the mother, contact with the parents, and the prospect of rehabilitation. An interim order did not inevitably mean permanent separation.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2014] EWCA Civ 1754, the mother’s appeal against the interim care order was dismissed.
• Manchester County Court — Her Honour Judge Penna made an interim care order for M on 23 October 2014 following earlier fact-finding proceedings concerning M’s siblings.