S (A Child: Adequacy of Reasoning), Re

A family court judgment must identify the material findings, explain the analysis supporting them and apply the correct standard of proof. In alleged inflicted-injury cases, the court should address accident, opportunity, whether a perpetrator can be identified, any uncertain-perpetrator finding, and failure to protect in a logical sequence.

An appellate court may reinforce explicit reasoning with identifiable material elsewhere in the judgment. It cannot reconstruct substantially all the reasoning needed to sustain the decision. Where essential conclusions are inadequately explained and material inconsistencies undermine confidence in the findings, the findings cannot stand and a rehearing may be required.

A three-year-old child sustained a fractured arm and other injuries while in the care of his mother and her boyfriend. In care proceedings, the Family Court found that the injuries were inflicted by one or both adults, but could not identify a perpetrator. It also made findings concerning concealment, failure to protect and failure to obtain medical attention.

The mother appealed. She argued that the judgment was internally inconsistent and that its conclusions were contrary to the weight of the evidence. The local authority and the children's guardian accepted that the judgment contained central uncertainty about whether accident had been excluded and who was responsible.

The principal issue was whether the Family Court had given sufficiently clear and adequate reasons for its findings.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The Family Court's conclusions were inadequately reasoned, and the structure and content of its judgment contained too many actual or arguable deficiencies for the findings to stand. A retrial before a different judge was required.

2. In a case concerning possibly inflicted injuries, the court should proceed through the relevant questions in sequence: whether the injuries were accidental or inflicted; who had the opportunity to cause them; whether a perpetrator could be identified on the balance of probabilities; whether an uncertain-perpetrator finding followed; and whether failure to protect or concealment was proved. The staged approach confirmed in B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575 provided a useful discipline, particularly where a party was unrepresented.

3. Adequate reasons are important to the parties, professionals implementing the decision, the child and carers, and any appellate court. The Family Court had asserted that the injuries were not accidental without explaining why. It had also failed to analyse the factors pointing towards and away from each adult as perpetrator. Their presence in the flat, dishonesty and mutual protection did not supply that missing analysis.

4. A judgment must be read as a whole. An appellate court may reinforce explicit reasoning by identifying supporting material elsewhere in the judgment and may fill identifiable gaps. It cannot undertake the whole reasoning exercise itself where there is no reliable basis for knowing whether it would reach the trial judge's conclusion.

5. The need for clarification on fundamental issues, the incompatibility between certain findings and the repeated imprecision concerning the standard of proof further undermined confidence in the decision. It was unnecessary and potentially prejudicial to determine the separate perversity ground before the retrial.

6. The Court of Appeal could not substitute its own findings because the evidence did not permit only one realistic outcome. The case was remitted to the Designated Family Judge for urgent case management and a retrial before a different judge. The operative order in care proceedings should clearly state the grounds on which the threshold is crossed rather than merely refer to a working Scott schedule.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The mother's appeal was allowed unanimously. The court held that the material findings were inadequately reasoned, directed a retrial before a different judge and remitted the proceedings to the Designated Family Judge for urgent case management.
2. Family Court at Watford: Following a fact-finding hearing in care proceedings, HHJ Mellanby found that the child's injuries were inflicted by either or both of the mother and her boyfriend, but did not identify a perpetrator. After the parties requested clarification, the judge supplied further reasons and confirmed that the injuries were not accidental.