Royal Borough of Greenwich v DC & Ors

In care and placement proceedings, the local authority bears the burden of proving the facts on the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of an allegation does not alter that standard, although stronger evidence may be required in practice. In cases involving inflicted injury, the court should identify the possible perpetrators, seek to identify the actual perpetrator on the balance of probabilities, and resort to a pool only if that cannot be done. Each person may enter the pool only where there is a likelihood or real possibility of responsibility.

The court must assess the totality of the evidence, including expert evidence, contemporaneous material, credibility and the wider circumstances. A parent’s failure to give evidence may justify appropriate inferences, but there is no general rule that the allegations must thereby be treated as true. Consent to adoption may be dispensed with only where the child’s welfare requires it and no other course will do.

The local authority sought care and placement orders for a child under one year old. The applications arose against the background of the non-accidental death of the child’s older sibling, for which the father had been acquitted of manslaughter in criminal proceedings.

The court considered whether the father or mother had caused the earlier injuries, whether the mother had failed to protect the older child, whether the statutory threshold for a care order was met, and whether adoption was required for the child’s welfare. The central issues were the correct approach to proof, perpetrator identification, parental non-participation, and the necessity of dispensing with parental consent.

1. Fact-finding and standard of proof. The local authority bore the burden throughout. The applicable standard was the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of the allegations and consequences did not raise that standard, although the quality and strength of evidence required in practice would generally be greater. The criminal acquittal did not determine the family proceedings, which had a different purpose and evidential framework.
2. Identification of perpetrators. The court adopted the three-stage approach described in Re B (Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575: identify those with opportunity; seek, without straining, to identify the actual perpetrator on the balance of probabilities; and only if that cannot be done ask whether there is a likelihood or real possibility that each person was a perpetrator. The burden remained on the local authority, and there was no concept of a pool of one.
3. Evaluation of evidence. Evidence had to be assessed in the context of the whole evidential picture. Expert medical evidence was important but remained for the court to weigh against the other evidence. The court considered contemporaneous communications, timing, witness evidence, parental credibility, drug addiction and the wider family circumstances. Lies did not automatically establish that all of a witness’s evidence was false.
4. Findings. On the balance of probabilities, the father inflicted both the fatal and earlier injuries. The mother was excluded from the pool in relation to those injuries, but had failed to protect the older child by leaving her with a heroin addict whose behaviour and loss of temper were known to her. The mother’s continuing drug use, poor engagement, denial and inability to protect the child from the father established the care concerns.
5. Placement order. The threshold under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 was met. Under section 52 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, dispensing with parental consent required the child’s welfare to require it. Adoption was a stringent last resort, but was necessary here because the child needed a stable and permanent home, no family placement was available, and the mother was not on a realistic path to providing safe care within the child’s timescale. A graduated ending of the mother’s direct contact, with possible letterbox contact, was appropriate; there was little benefit in letterbox contact with the father.