Lancashire County Council v A (Burned Child)

In care proceedings involving disputed non-accidental injuries, the local authority bears the burden of proving the allegations on the balance of probabilities. The court must assess all the evidence in context, distinguish expert medical opinion from the judicial fact-finding function, and avoid findings based on suspicion or speculation. A witness’s lies do not necessarily establish that every part of the witness’s evidence is false. Where the perpetrator cannot be identified, the court must not strain to identify one, but may identify persons shown to present a real possibility of responsibility. Adoption requires careful comparison with the available alternatives. It is justified only where the child’s welfare throughout life requires it and nothing else will do, making the order proportionate to the child’s needs.

The local authority sought Care and Placement Orders for a child who had suffered burns, bruises and abrasions. The mother supported the care plan for adoption, while the father had not attended the final hearing and had received a negative assessment. The mother’s partner, Mr C, was joined as an intervener because the central contested issue was whether he or the mother had inflicted the injuries.

The court heard medical, social work and factual evidence. It considered the competing explanations for the injuries, the credibility of the adults, the delay in obtaining medical treatment, and whether the statutory threshold and requirements for adoption were met.

1. Fact-finding. The local authority had to prove its allegations on the balance of probabilities. The judge assessed the evidence as a whole, placing the medical evidence alongside the other evidence and recognising that the expert’s role differed from the judge’s role. The judge also allowed for the possibility that the cause of some injuries might remain unknown and stated that a perpetrator must not be identified by strained reasoning.
2. Identification and findings. The only realistic potential perpetrators were the mother and Mr C. Mr C had lied and obstructed the enquiry, but those findings did not establish that he inflicted the injuries. The mother’s changing accounts, the surrounding evidence, the medical evidence and the circumstances of the burns established, on the balance of probabilities, that she deliberately inflicted all the injuries. She had also delayed obtaining medical treatment and had given untrue accounts.
3. Care and adoption. The threshold was established by the child’s suffering significant harm and the clear risk of repetition. Applying Re B-S, the judge considered adoption and long-term foster care, including the disadvantages and possible instability of adoption. Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the child’s welfare throughout life was paramount. The need for permanence and security meant that the welfare requirements for adoption were met: nothing else would do, and dispensing with parental consent was necessary and proportionate.
4. Care and Placement Orders were made. The care plan for adoption was approved and parental consent to placement for adoption was dispensed with. The court also declared the father’s paternity, but refused his application for parental responsibility.

Not stated in the judgment. This was a first-instance final hearing in the Family Court sitting at Leyland, before His Honour Judge Duggan sitting as a High Court judge.