A Local Authority v T & Ors

In care proceedings, disputed allegations must be determined on the balance of probabilities by assessing the evidence as a whole. The court must decide each allegation separately, while avoiding compartmentalisation and drawing only logical inferences from proved evidence.

Where dishonesty is alleged, the court must distinguish a lie from mistake, confusion, memory failure or distortion, examine why the lie was told, assess its relevance to the issues, and avoid assuming that a lie on one matter establishes dishonesty on all matters.

Expert evidence assists but does not determine the issues. The court retains responsibility for findings and welfare decisions. Supervised contact and restrictions on parental responsibility may be justified where a parent presents a significant risk of emotional harm or of undermining the child’s placement and relationships.

The local authority sought a care order for A, aged nine, and a supervision order, with placement with her father, for B, aged three and a half. The mother accepted some allegations concerning fabricated seizure symptoms and failure to administer medication but disputed much of the threshold case and opposed orders in respect of B.

The court considered evidence from medical, psychological, educational and social-care professionals, together with the parents and children’s guardian. The central issues were whether the mother had caused A actual harm through exaggerating her condition, exposing her to unnecessary medical intervention and undermining professional care; whether B had suffered or was at risk of harm; and what orders and contact arrangements served the children’s welfare.

1. Findings and threshold. The court found the threshold crossed in respect of both children. The mother had fabricated or exaggerated A’s symptoms and needs, permitted an unnecessary MRI scan following false reports of frequent seizures, stopped prescribed medication without medical advice, rejected professional advice, commissioned unjustified independent assessments, covertly recorded professionals and undermined coordinated care. She had also restricted B’s relationship with F2 and caused emotional harm to B. There was a real risk that the behaviour displayed towards A would transfer to B in different forms.
2. Fact-finding approach. The local authority bore the burden of proof. The civil standard applied. The court had to decide each allegation but survey the entire evidential canvas, avoiding compartmentalisation. It could draw logical inferences, but not rely on speculation or rumour. The judge, not the expert, remained responsible for decision-making. There was no obligation to cross-examine on every point, applying Tui v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48.
3. Alleged lies. Applying R v Lucas [1981] QB 720, the court distinguished lies from mistake, confusion, memory failure and distortion, considered the reasons for proven lies, assessed their relevance, and did not treat dishonesty on one issue as automatically establishing dishonesty on every issue.
4. Welfare and orders. Applying the welfare checklist in s.1 of the Children Act 1989, the court made a care order for A, with her continuing at the residential placement unless a suitable long-term foster placement became available. B was to remain living with F2 under a supervision order. The mother’s contact with both children was to be supervised, and contact with B was to be fortnightly. Her parental responsibility for B was restricted concerning education and medical treatment. The judgment was published subject to strict anonymisation.