A LOCAL AUTHORITY v AA & Ors

In care proceedings, findings of non-accidental injury and failure to protect must be based on the totality of the evidence and the balance of probabilities. The court must consider medical and non-medical evidence together, remain alert to unknown causes, avoid speculation and hindsight bias, and assess each alleged perpetrator separately. A parent’s failure to protect is not automatic merely because the parent lived with the perpetrator. The evidence must establish a relevant risk of significant harm and show that the parent’s conduct fell below what it was reasonable to expect. A finding may nevertheless be made where the parent knew of the perpetrator’s dishonesty and abusive behaviour, yet failed to question events or alert professionals to risks.

The local authority sought findings in care proceedings concerning two children, Y and Z, and the earlier death of their sibling, X. The principal allegations were that the father had suffocated X and induced serious episodes in Z, had induced allergic reactions in the mother, had fabricated or exaggerated medical symptoms, and had subjected the mother to domestic abuse. It was also alleged that the mother had failed to protect the children and had exaggerated the father’s symptoms.

The court conducted an eight-day fact-finding hearing. The central issues were causation, the father’s responsibility for the children’s medical episodes, the alleged domestic abuse, and whether the mother’s conduct satisfied the threshold requirements.

1. Findings and disposition. The court found that the father killed X by suffocation and induced three emergency episodes suffered by Z. It found that the evidence did not establish induced illness in respect of Y. It also found that the father induced serious allergic reactions in the mother and engaged in domestic abuse, including physical and sexual abuse and coercive control. The mother was found to have failed to protect the children. No finding was made that she exaggerated the father’s medical symptoms. The proceedings were to proceed to a welfare hearing.
2. Evaluation of the medical evidence. The court considered the medical evidence holistically. In relation to Z, the rapid resolution of the third episode, the absence of infection, the blood-gas results and the absence of any later episodes after removal from parental care supported deliberate airway obstruction. In relation to X, the unexplained earlier episodes, the post-mortem findings and the medical evidence supported a single inflicted cause, while the court remained cautious about assuming a unifying diagnosis.
3. Evidence and credibility. The court applied the balance of probabilities and considered inherent probabilities only as part of ordinary reasoning. It avoided fanciful speculation and considered the possibility of an unknown cause. The father’s lies were not treated as proof of guilt by themselves, but were considered with the other evidence. The court also considered the timing of the incidents, the father’s opportunities to act, his pattern of medical attention-seeking and his persistent dishonesty.
4. Failure to protect. The mother’s failure was not inferred merely from cohabitation with the perpetrator. The court found that she knew of the father’s violence and dishonesty, was aware of the extraordinary number of medical emergencies, and failed to question him or alert professionals. Her conduct therefore amounted to a failure to protect within section 31, including protection from emotional harm and risks arising from the father’s conduct.

Not stated in the judgment.