A & Ors (Child Contracting Gonorrhoea), Re
[2023] EWFC 211
A, B & C (Fact-Finding: Gonorrhoea)
26 April 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 437
Court of Appeal
A little girl got gonorrhea. The judge thought her parents did it together, even though no one said that specifically. The higher court said that wasn't fair, so they have to try the case again.
Key Facts
- •Three girls (A, B, and C) were subject to care proceedings.
- •A, aged 7, was diagnosed with gonorrhoea.
- •The mother and Y (father of the youngest child) were the primary caregivers.
- •The mother and Y denied sexually abusing A, suggesting alternative transmission methods (loofah, towel, toilet seat).
- •Expert evidence indicated sexual contact as the most likely transmission method, although non-sexual transmission was acknowledged as a theoretical possibility.
- •A did not make any allegations of abuse.
- •There was no physical evidence of sexual abuse on A.
- •A camera in the children's bedroom was present, making nighttime abuse less likely.
- •The judge initially found that A was infected by one or both parents but later revised this, finding a real possibility of joint abuse after clarification requests.
- •The appeal was based on procedural errors and misinterpretations of the medical evidence.
Legal Principles
Threshold criteria for care orders: significant harm and attribution of harm to unreasonable parental care.
Children Act 1989, s.31(2)
Identification of perpetrator is preferred but not mandatory for care order; if unable to identify, 'real possibility' test applies to each potential perpetrator.
Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575; Re K (Children) [2004] EWCA Civ 1181; Lancashire County Council v B [2000] UKHL 16; Re O and N (Minors) [2003] UKHL 18; North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003] EWCA Civ 839; Re S-B (Children) [2009] UKSC 17
Burden of proof rests on the local authority to prove harm on the balance of probabilities.
Case law cited throughout the judgment.
Fair hearing requires notice of allegations, supporting evidence, and opportunity to respond.
Re B (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2127
Judge should not depart from proposed findings without good reason; additional findings must be supported by evidence and fairness ensured.
Re G and B (Fact-Finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 10
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The judge made errors in interpreting medical evidence, leading to a finding of joint abuse not properly raised during proceedings. This violated the appellants' right to a fair hearing and procedural fairness.
Case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
To ensure procedural fairness, the rehearing should include consideration of all potential causes of A’s infection.