H (A CHILD)

In care proceedings alleging non-accidental injury, the local authority bears the burden of proving its case on the balance of probabilities. The court must assess the whole evidential picture, including expert medical evidence, lay evidence, credibility and the possibility of an unknown cause, while avoiding speculation. A perpetrator should be identified where possible, but the court must not strain to do so. A parent’s lies must be assessed in context and do not automatically establish that all of the parent’s evidence is false. Findings that a parent did not inflict the injuries may coexist with a finding of serious failure to protect where the parent ought to have recognised signs of abuse and sought medical advice.

Following the death of a five-month-old child, the local authority commenced care proceedings concerning her older brother. The hearing concerned the causes of the deceased child’s multiple injuries and the identity of the perpetrator. The parents proposed explanations involving self-inflicted bruising, choking and resuscitative actions. The court also considered whether the mother had failed to protect the child despite her awareness of repeated bruising. The central issues were whether the injuries were non-accidental, who caused them, and whether the mother should be found culpable for failing to obtain medical assistance.

1. Applicable approach. The local authority bore the burden of proof, with the civil standard applying. The court had to consider all the evidence on a wide canvas, including expert medical opinions in the context of the lay evidence. It had to avoid speculation, recognise the limits of expert expertise, and remain alert to the possibility of an unknown cause.
2. Identification of the perpetrator. The court should identify a perpetrator where possible, but should not strain to do so. The test for placing a person in the pool of possible perpetrators was whether there was a likelihood or real possibility that the person was responsible. The court assessed the parents’ credibility and treated lies cautiously, bearing in mind that people may lie for shame, loyalty, panic, fear or distress. The principle in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 was applied.
3. Findings on the injuries. The medical evidence established at least three episodes of significant trauma, including shaking and impact. The acute injuries occurred shortly before collapse, when the father was alone with the child. The choking account did not explain the constellation of injuries. The father’s inconsistent accounts were rejected, and he was found responsible for the fatal injuries beyond reasonable doubt. On the balance of probabilities, he had also caused the earlier bruising, fractures and haemorrhages.
4. Mother’s responsibility. The mother was exonerated of inflicting the injuries. However, she knew that the bruises appeared abusive, ought to have recognised that the child was being abused, and ought to have sought medical advice immediately. Her deliberate avoidance of medical professionals constituted a serious failure to protect. The fact-finding issues were determined accordingly.