Essex County Council v P

In fact-finding proceedings concerning suspected child abuse, the local authority bears the burden of proving each allegation on the balance of probabilities. The court must base findings on evidence and proper inferences, not suspicion or speculation, and must assess medical and other evidence in the context of the totality of the evidence.

An unexplained injury remains equivocal. The absence of a plausible alternative explanation does not reverse the burden of proof. Further expert investigation should be directed only where there is a sound evidential basis for it. A person may be placed in the pool of possible perpetrators where there is a real possibility of responsibility, but an individual finding requires proof on the balance of probabilities.

The local authority investigated the death of A, an infant who had suffered multiple injuries of different types and apparent ages, including head injuries, retinal haemorrhages, rib fractures and leg fractures. A died after collapsing at home while in the mother’s sole care. The mother was subsequently charged with murder and child cruelty.

The court considered whether the injuries were inflicted, whether the mother or father was responsible, and whether further genetic, metabolic or neuro-radiological investigation was necessary before determining the facts.

1. Findings and expert investigation. The court rejected applications for further genetic, metabolic and neuro-radiological evidence. Further investigation requires a solid evidential basis; testing must not become an open-ended search where the existing pathological, radiological and clinical evidence provides no realistic alternative explanation. The post-mortem evidence was the most direct overview of the child’s condition.
2. Burden and standard of proof. The local authority retained the burden of proving the alleged injuries and responsibility for them. The standard was the balance of probabilities. The mother’s inability to explain the injuries was not itself evidence that she caused them.
3. Assessment of the evidence. The court considered the medical evidence cumulatively and alongside the evidence of the parents and other witnesses. Findings had to rest on evidence and proper inferences rather than speculation. The medical evidence was not determinative; the court had to conduct its own assessment, while respecting the limits of expert expertise. The possibility of an unknown cause and the fallibility of present medical knowledge required caution.
4. Conclusions. The injuries were inflicted on several occasions and resulted from the mother’s actions. The court found that the mother had subjected A to emotionally and physically abusive behaviour causing pain, injury and ultimately death. It was more likely than not that she had vented frustration on A, although the court did not find that she intended to kill her.
5. The father was not responsible for the injuries and had not failed to protect the children so as to meet the threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989. The court considered his conduct in its factual and professional-support context and found that he could reasonably have believed the difficulties were short-term problems capable of being managed. B’s return to his father’s care was confirmed as the correct decision.

First-instance fact-finding decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.