SX (A Child)

In care proceedings involving unexplained serious injuries to an infant, the local authority bears the burden of proving the allegations on the balance of probabilities. Findings must rest on evidence and proper inferences, viewed across the evidence as a whole. Where the perpetrator cannot be identified, a person may be placed in a pool only if there is a likelihood or real possibility that they caused the injury; opportunity alone is insufficient.

A court may rely on lies as supporting evidence only where the safeguards in R v Lucas are satisfied. Lies are not, by themselves, proof of guilt. In assessing a parent’s knowledge and failure to protect, the court may consider the multiplicity of injuries, the child’s likely distress, the physical environment, the parents’ conduct and the credibility of their accounts.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning SX, a four-year-old child, after the unexplained death of his two-month-old sister, AX. Post-mortem and subsequent expert examinations identified multiple rib and limb fractures, head injuries and bruising. The local authority sought findings that one or both parents had inflicted the injuries, alternatively that they should be placed in a pool of possible perpetrators, together with findings concerning failure to protect and abusive treatment.

The court conducted a fact-finding hearing remotely. The principal issues were whether the injuries were non-accidental, whether either parent inflicted them, whether either parent knew of the abuse, and whether either parent failed to protect AX.

1. Injuries. The medical evidence established, on the balance of probabilities, that all of AX’s fractures and head injuries were inflicted. There was no evidence of an underlying condition or abnormal pain response. The injuries occurred on at least seven occasions. The chest bruising and occipital bruising were also probably inflicted, and were unlikely to have resulted from CPR or birth.
2. Perpetrator. The court applied the principles in North Yorkshire County Council v SA and Re B (Uncertain Perpetrator). The evidence overwhelmingly established that the Father inflicted the injuries, including the final femoral fracture. His history of violence, his treatment of SX, his lies, and the inconsistency of his account of the final night were relied upon.
3. Lies and memory. The court applied the Lucas safeguards, as explained in Re H-C. Lies were treated as supporting evidence, not direct proof of guilt. The court also considered Gestmin v Credit Suisse UK, but found that the Father’s claimed memory failures were deliberate attempts to avoid difficult questions rather than ordinary memory problems.
4. Mother. The court found that the Mother probably did not inflict the injuries. However, she knew that AX was being abused and was distressed. The multiplicity of injuries, the small flat, the likely crying after each injury, the 111 call, the parents’ conduct and her changing accounts made ignorance implausible. She deliberately failed to intervene and failed to tell the truth to protect herself.
5. The court also found that the Mother slapped SX three times, that the Father was violent to the Mother, and that he threatened, controlled and manipulated Ms Z.