The Local Authority v The Mother & Ors

In a fact-finding hearing within care proceedings, the court must determine disputed events on the balance of probabilities by considering the wide canvas of evidence, including expert evidence. Findings must be based on facts rather than speculation, although reasonable inferences may be drawn. A failure to supervise a child may amount to a failure to protect where the circumstances created an obvious risk of harm. However, a carer is not necessarily expected to identify an unseen contaminant from later symptoms where the child’s presentation has other plausible explanations and the contaminant would not have been apparent. The court must distinguish between an established failure to protect and a more specific allegation that the carer should have recognised the precise cause of the child’s illness.

The local authority brought care proceedings concerning two children, C and D, and sought findings arising from D’s severe hypernatremia after she was fed formula contaminated with salt. The local authority ultimately abandoned an allegation that the mother had deliberately contaminated the formula. The remaining issues were whether the mother failed to appreciate an obvious risk of contamination when she found C playing with formula near an open salt container, and whether she ought to have recognised that later feeds were contaminated and sought medical assistance sooner. The mother accepted other failures to supervise, feeding contaminated milk and delaying medical attention.

1. The court accepted the local authority’s revised position and found that D’s milk powder was probably contaminated accidentally by C while he was unsupervised. The finding was supported by the expert evidence, the timing of D’s symptoms, C’s previous behaviour, the mother’s later realisation, the grandmother’s evidence and what C was reported to have said.

2. The mother’s accepted failures to supervise C, to use contaminated milk to feed D and to seek medical attention promptly amounted to a serious failure to protect the children. The applicable approach required findings on the balance of probabilities, based on the wide canvas of evidence and avoiding speculation. A witness’s lies about some matters did not require rejection of all of that witness’s evidence.

3. The court found that the mother ought to have appreciated the obvious risk of contamination when she saw C playing with the open formula tub beside an open salt container. Her knowledge of C’s previous conduct involving powders and messy play made further protective steps reasonably necessary. Her exhaustion and poor mental state helped explain the failure, but did not remove it.

4. The more specific allegation concerning later feeds was not established. The mother had previously experienced colic and vomiting, D had fed relatively well from the earlier bottle, the mother changed bottles when difficulties arose and she sought advice from a friend. It would not have been apparent from the appearance of the powder that it contained salt. The finding was therefore confined to the failure to appreciate the earlier contamination risk.

5. The remaining safeguarding concerns were considered capable of being addressed through intensive support, with the mother’s improved insight and cooperation providing a basis for work towards the children’s return, subject to their welfare needs.