A Council v The Mother & Ors
[2023] EWFC 37 (B)
Re C & Ors (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding)
26 January 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 38
Court of Appeal
A baby got hurt, and the grown-ups weren't honest about it. A judge decided the parents weren't taking good enough care and needs to be involved. A higher court agreed, even though the judge's explanation was a bit messy.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concerning a large family with nine children (four from the father's first marriage, five from his second marriage).
- •Allegations of assault against both parents over several years, mostly retracted.
- •10-month-old child H sustained a skull fracture.
- •Parents and eldest child A gave inconsistent and untruthful accounts of events.
- •Medical experts could not definitively determine whether the injury was accidental or inflicted.
- •Judge found that parents and A were dishonest and withheld information, preventing a clear determination of how H's injury occurred.
- •Judge found past incidents of violence within the family.
- •Local authority did not prove allegations of parental pressure to retract statements or consistent use of physical violence.
Legal Principles
Threshold criteria for making care orders under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989.
Children Act 1989
Case management decisions will only be overturned if plainly wrong.
Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd [2014] UKSC 64
Burden and standard of proof in care proceedings – binary system, balance of probabilities.
Re B [2008] UKHL 35
Assessing the reliability of evidence where dishonesty is present (R v Lucas).
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Adequacy of reasoning in judgments, particularly in family cases.
Re N-S [2017] EWCA Civ 1121, Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348, Re A and another (Children) (Judgment: Adequacy of Reasoning) [2011] EWCA Civ 1205, Re I (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 898, Re F and G (Children) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2022] EWCA Civ 1002
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Judge's findings were justified despite concerns about the length and complexity of the judgment and its annexes. The judge's reasoning, while not perfectly clear, was ultimately discernible, supporting the conclusion that the threshold for care orders was met.