Z (Infant fatality), Re

In family fact-finding proceedings, the party relying on a disputed fact must prove it on the balance of probabilities. The court is not required to search for a finding where the evidence leaves it in doubt, and must avoid reasoning based merely on the least unlikely explanation, hindsight or outcome bias.

A Lucas direction is not required in every family case and must not be given as a formulaic exercise. Where dishonesty is relied upon, the court should identify the alleged deliberate lies, the significant issue to which they relate, and why guilt is the only explanation. Departures from Achieving Best Evidence guidance do not automatically make evidence unusable, but may require considerable caution.

The local authority applied for public law orders concerning Z, the maternal half-sibling of A, who had died aged three years and eight months while in the care of D, the mother’s partner and Z’s father. The proceedings concerned allegations that A had been left home alone, that D’s gross neglect caused A’s death after entrapment in a bedside cabinet, that D had abused the older children, that the mother had failed to protect them, and that both adults had misled professionals and intended to relocate to China to avoid child-protection involvement.

The court determined the local authority’s allegations and whether the threshold statement was satisfied.

The court found that paragraphs 1–4 of the local authority’s threshold statement were satisfied.

1. Burden and standard of proof. The local authority had to prove disputed facts on the balance of probabilities. The court applied the established fact-finding guidance in Re JS, Lancashire County Council v C, M and F and Re A (A child). It was not bound by the schedule of allegations and could make only findings relevant to the proceedings and supported by the evidence.
2. Evidence and causation. The court accepted that A died from positional asphyxia following entrapment in a bedside cabinet. It rejected a finding that D had deliberately confined A in the cabinet because the evidence did not support it. Nevertheless, D’s inadequate supervision and gross neglect enabled A to enter the cabinet and remain there for a significant period. The mother and D had left A alone without proper regard for his safety.
3. Children’s evidence. The departures from the Achieving Best Evidence Guidelines did not make B and C’s accounts unusable, but, absent corroboration, required extreme caution. The court found that D had subjected B and C to cruel and inappropriate punishment and had covered A’s mouth to quieten him. The mother knew of that conduct and failed to protect the children.
4. Dishonesty and conduct. A Lucas direction is not required automatically. The court considered the guidance in Re A, B and C (Children) when assessing the adults’ evasive and inconsistent evidence. It found that both adults had deliberately withheld information about the police investigation and had given professionals an untruthful account. Their proposed relocation to China was principally intended to avoid professional and child-protection involvement.