AD & AM (Non-Accidental Injury: Welfare)

In public law proceedings, the court must treat the child’s welfare as paramount while assessing future risk alongside the other welfare factors. An unexplained or denied non-accidental injury may make risk difficult to quantify, but it does not automatically require separation from the parents. The court must consider whether a sufficiently robust protective structure can reasonably manage the risk. That structure may include extended-family supervision, detailed conditions, professional monitoring and a supervision order. Further assessment or adjournment is justified only where necessary to resolve the welfare issue, having regard to the duration of the proceedings and the children’s need for permanence.

Following a fact-finding judgment that the mother had inflicted life-threatening head injuries on AD, the proceedings returned for welfare orders concerning AD and his older sister AM. The children had lived with their maternal grandparents and had regular, positive contact with both parents. The Local Authority and parents supported rehabilitation under a supervision order. The Children’s Guardian initially sought an adjournment for Special Guardianship Order assessments because of concerns about denial, future risk, the father’s protective capacity and the care plan.

The central issue was whether the children could safely return to their parents with appropriate safeguards.

1. The threshold criteria under the Children Act 1989 had been established by the earlier fact-finding judgment. In deciding the substantive orders, the welfare of AD and AM was paramount under section 1. The court also had to consider the impact of delay and the statutory expectation that public law proceedings should ordinarily be completed within 26 weeks.
2. Future risk was the central issue. The mother continued to deny causing AD’s injuries, making the risk difficult to quantify. The absence of an explanation, and the likely stresses associated with the criminal proceedings and family reunification, meant that risk could not simply be assumed to have disappeared.
3. The decisive question was whether the protective measures were adequate to manage that risk. The father’s continuing difficulty in accepting the finding created a potential conflict, but he was assessed as capable of protecting the children when supported by the extended family. The maternal and paternal grandparents offered genuine protection, and the paternal grandmother’s continuing presence was an important safeguard.
4. The revised care plan addressed concerns about visiting, health planning and AD’s developmental needs. The supervision order also imposed duties on the Local Authority, including the duty under section 35(1)(c) of the Children Act 1989 to return the matter to court if the order was not complied with.
5. The court declined to adjourn for further assessment. It relied on the duration of the proceedings, the children’s need for permanence and the adequacy of the revised safeguards. In doing so, it referred to the guidance in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and Re W (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1227.
6. A consent order was approved. The children were to return to live with their parents, subject to shared residence with the paternal grandmother, detailed supervision of the mother, and a 12-month supervision order expected to continue for at least a further year.

First-instance welfare determination. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.