Stockton On Tees Borough Council v F (the Father)

In care proceedings, the court may undertake a proportionate fact-finding exercise even where the care plan would be unchanged, if a disputed issue is material to understanding the risk posed by the parent and future rehabilitation. An injury may be non-accidental without having been deliberately inflicted. The relevant distinction is between an unexpected and unintentional accident and an injury involving an element of wrong, which may include negligence, recklessness or deliberate infliction. A parent’s lies are relevant to credibility but do not, without more, establish culpability. The court must assess the explanation for the injury in the context of the parent’s wider relationship with the children and parenting capacity.

These were final care proceedings concerning four children who had been removed from their father’s care and placed in foster care after one child sustained facial and other injuries. The Local Authority, the father and the Children’s Guardian supported a care order and a plan involving work with the father with a view to rehabilitation. The mother opposed the children returning to the father and relied particularly on the allegation that he had struck the injured child in anger.

The central issue for determination was whether the father’s account of accidentally striking the child while attempting to prevent him throwing a brick was genuine, or whether the injury resulted from a more serious loss of temper or deliberate punishment.

1. Fact-finding and proportionality. Although the care plan would proceed towards rehabilitation whatever the precise cause of the injury, a short fact-finding hearing was proportionate because the mother’s case rested on the allegation of an angry assault and because the finding would inform future decisions about rehabilitation. The other injuries did not require investigation.
2. Nature of the injury. Applying the civil standard of proof, the court found that the father’s account was not wholly invented. He had swiped at a brick held by the child, intending to prevent the child striking his sibling, but used grossly excessive force and struck the child’s face. The act was dangerous and involved recklessness, but was not intended to harm, harshly punish or deliberately injure the child. The finding therefore fell within the category of a non-accidental injury involving an element of wrong.
3. Credibility. The father’s lies to the Local Authority and police counted against him, but the court applied the principle that people may lie for reasons other than guilt. His explanations of shame and fear of losing the children, together with his evidence and concessions, were relevant to the assessment of his account.
4. Outcome. The threshold for state intervention was met. Neither parent was then able to care for all four children, so a care order was made. The Local Authority was to manage the children under its care plan, offering the father parenting work over the following three or four months with rehabilitation as the objective.

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