A Borough Council v YZ & Ors

In care proceedings, the court may infer a parent’s knowledge of abuse from the cumulative circumstances, including repeated injuries, implausible explanations, the severity and number of assaults, the physical environment and the parent’s conduct after investigations began. The assessment is not confined to direct observation of the decisive assault. Deliberate lies may be assessed by asking whether they were told for relevant or irrelevant reasons. Where the evidence establishes knowledge that a child was being harmed and a failure to act, the conduct may amount to neglect under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

The local authority brought proceedings concerning an infant who had sustained numerous serious injuries, including fractures and a broken neck. The father admitted repeatedly assaulting the child. The central issue was the extent of the mother’s knowledge or suspicion of the father’s conduct and whether her failure to protect the child, together with her subsequent conduct, established neglect. The judge also considered the significance of misleading evidence and the parents’ resumed relationship.

1. The court found that the father had systematically subjected the child to repeated and exceptionally serious assaults, including conduct causing a broken neck and multiple fractures.

2. The mother’s awareness was assessed cumulatively. Relevant matters included the injuries she saw or heard about, the implausible explanations given by the father, further injuries which she could not have missed, the child’s cries, the small size of the house and the severity, scale and number of the assaults. The judge concluded that her state of mind had moved beyond suspicion or belief into knowledge.

3. The mother knew that the father was harming the child but took no action to protect her. Her conduct after the investigations began, including misleading evidence and the resumption of the relationship, reinforced the conclusion that she placed the relationship ahead of her responsibilities to the child.

4. In considering the mother’s lies, the judge reminded himself of the principles in R v Lucas and considered whether the lies were told for relevant or irrelevant reasons. The judge treated the fact of resuming the relationship as particularly significant to the assessment of the mother’s responsibilities.

5. The judge concluded that the mother was guilty of neglect under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. He urged the police and Crown Prosecution Service to decide promptly whether to prosecute. The judgment otherwise concluded the fact-finding stage; any welfare phase remained to be addressed.

First-instance fact-finding judgment. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.