Staffordshire County Council v B & Anor

In child-protection fact-finding proceedings, the local authority bears the burden of proving allegations on the balance of probabilities. The court must assess responsibility and timing across the whole evidential canvas, including medical, circumstantial and witness evidence. Where non-accidental injuries are established, the court may identify the perpetrator by evaluating opportunity, behaviour, stress, presentation and the competing explanations, while avoiding speculation unsupported by the evidence. In welfare decisions, the child’s welfare is paramount. Adoption may be authorised and parental consent dispensed with where the evidence demonstrates a serious, unquantifiable risk of further harm and the child’s welfare requires it.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning a 12-month-old child who had sustained non-accidental rib fractures and subdural injuries while living with his father at a residential assessment unit. The central issues were the timing and perpetrator of the injuries. The father denied responsibility and alleged that members of the unit’s staff had caused the injuries. The court also considered the parents’ ability to care for the child in light of earlier findings concerning the child’s half-brother. Following the fact-finding hearing, the court determined whether care and placement orders should be made and whether parental consent to adoption should be dispensed with.

1. The local authority proved the relevant facts on the balance of probabilities. The court adopted the approach that responsibility and timing must be assessed across a wide evidential canvas, not by reference to expert medical evidence alone. The medical evidence established two separate episodes: rib fractures inflicted between 9 and 18 November 2015, and subdural injuries inflicted between 11pm on 23 November and 6.55am on 24 November.
2. The staff members’ cases rested only on opportunity. They were experienced childcare professionals, there was no evidence of motive, stress, inappropriate conduct or prior concern, and the surrounding staffing arrangements made their alleged involvement implausible. Their alleged responsibility was dismissed and each was expressly exonerated.
3. The father was the only person with both a realistic opportunity and a reason to have inflicted the injuries. He was exhausted, under significant emotional pressure and struggling with night-time care. The court found that he caused both episodes during a sudden loss of control, without malicious, deliberate or intentional purpose. His denial did not alter the factual findings.
4. For welfare purposes, the court applied the paramountcy principle and the welfare checklist under the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The parents’ inability to recognise or explain the circumstances creating the risk meant that rehabilitation could not safely be achieved. The risk of further harm was serious and could not be quantified.
5. The court therefore made a care order and a placement order. Under section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, it dispensed with both parents’ consent because adoption was overwhelmingly and manifestly in the child’s welfare interests.