A Local Authority v Mother & Ors

In disputed fact-finding proceedings concerning suspected non-accidental injury, the court must determine each allegation on the balance of probabilities while assessing the evidence as a whole. Expert evidence cannot determine the issue by itself: the judge must combine it with the factual evidence and the parents’ accounts. The court may draw logical inferences, but must avoid speculation, compartmentalisation and hindsight. A lie must be separately established, its reason considered, and its relevance assessed; one lie does not establish that every other account is false. A parent who knows that a child is being repeatedly injured by another carer must take reasonable protective steps, regardless of whether the injuries are deliberate.

The Local Authority sought a care order in respect of P, an infant who suffered multiple fractures, bruising, oral injuries and a serious brain injury. The parents denied responsibility, while maternal grandparents and a paternal aunt were joined because they had cared for P and might offer alternative care.

The central issues were whether the father caused the injuries, whether any injuries were accidental or self-inflicted, whether the mother failed to protect P, and what conclusions should be drawn concerning the maternal grandparents’ protective capacity. The court also considered the significance of expert medical evidence, disputed explanations and alleged lies.

1. Fact-finding principles. The Local Authority bore the burden of proof, and the civil standard applied. Each allegation had to be decided on the evidence, but the court was required to survey the entire evidential canvas and avoid compartmentalising individual items. Logical inferences were permissible; speculation and rumour were not.
2. Expert evidence. The judge, not the expert, retained responsibility for decision-making. Medical evidence had to be combined with the factual evidence and the parents’ accounts. Experts had to remain within their expertise, and recurrence of injury was not independently probative.
3. Lies. Applying the approach in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720, the court had first to establish the alleged lie on the balance of probabilities, distinguish lies from mistake, confusion, memory failure and evolving accounts, consider why the lie was told, and assess its relevance. A lie about one issue did not establish dishonesty about all issues.
4. Findings. The father caused P’s injuries, save for the clavicle fracture and a cheek scratch. The brain injury was caused by shaking. The other fractures, bruising and mouth injuries were inflicted through shaking or rough handling, including forceful feeding. The court declined to find that the disputed photograph established a bite mark caused by the father because the Local Authority had not proved that allegation.
5. Failure to protect. By at least mid-April the mother knew that P was being injured through the father’s handling. Her belief that the injuries were not deliberate did not reduce the protective obligation. She failed to remove P from the risk or obtain adequate assistance, including leaving him alone with the father for substantial periods. This was an independent and material finding, not a supplemental finding.
6. The court expressed serious concerns about the maternal grandparents’ lack of curiosity, continued acceptance of the mother’s explanations and limited insight. Those matters were to be fully considered in any future assessment, although the judgment does not state the final care order.