M (A Child)(Non-Accidental Injuries; Wider Canvas), Re
[2024] EWFC 209 (B)
A Local Authority v SH & Ors
31 January 2024
[2024] EWFC 189 (B)
Family Court
A baby got hurt, and the question was: accident or abuse? Doctors disagreed, some saying it could be an accident (fall from a bed) and others saying abuse. The judge decided it was likely an accident, because there wasn't enough evidence to prove abuse.
Key Facts
- •8-month-old child M presented to hospital with serious injuries including chronic bilateral multifocal subdural collections, acute subdural blood, parenchymal injury, cortical vein thrombosis, a lesion in the corpus callosum, blood over the tentorium, encephalopathy, and retinal hemorrhages.
- •Initial Local Authority application to withdraw proceedings due to insufficient evidence to establish threshold for care orders was granted.
- •Subsequently, police expert reports concluded injuries were likely non-accidental, leading to the reinstatement of proceedings.
- •Multiple medical experts were involved, with differing opinions and evolving conclusions throughout the proceedings.
- •Key point of contention: whether the injuries resulted from a fall from a bed or non-accidental injury (NAI).
- •A significant factor introduced later was an arachnoid cyst discovered in M's brain.
Legal Principles
Threshold for care order requires findings of harm attributable to care given, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give; or child being beyond parental control.
s.31 Children Act 1989
Standard of proof in care proceedings is the balance of probabilities.
Re B 2008 UK HL 35
Findings of fact must be based on evidence, not speculation.
Re A( A Child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ. 12
Expert medical opinions must be considered in the context of all other evidence.
A County Council v K D & L [2005] EWHC 144(Fam)
Court must assess the credibility and reliability of parents' and other carers' evidence.
A witness lying about some matters doesn't mean they've lied about everything.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
If injuries are non-accidental, the court identifies a perpetrator or pool of perpetrators using a three-fold test: opportunity, identification on balance of probabilities, and if not possible, a real possibility each individual on the list inflicted the injury.
Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) 2019 EWCA Civ. 575; Re A (Children)(Pool of Perpetrators) 2022 EWCA Civ. 1348
Outcomes
Local Authority failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that M's injuries were inflicted by either parent.
The court preferred the expert evidence of Dr Hogarth and Mr Jalloh, who concluded that a combination of an arachnoid cyst rupture and a subsequent fall could explain M's injuries. The absence of typical features associated with inflicted injuries and the parents' consistent account of the fall supported this conclusion. While inconsistencies in the parents' testimony were noted, they were not deemed sufficient to indicate guilt.