London Borough of Haringey v A & Ors
[2023] EWFC 301 (B)
AA, Re
27 November 2023
[2023] EWFC 278 (B)
Family Court
A baby had unexplained bruises and broken ribs. The authorities thought the parents hurt her, but a judge said there wasn't enough proof. The case was thrown out, meaning the parents didn't lose custody.
Key Facts
- •Baby AA (born 22.11.2022) was admitted to hospital due to unexplained marks and bruising reported by parents BB and DD.
- •A skeletal survey revealed AA had two fractured ribs.
- •The local authority initiated care proceedings.
- •The case involved a fact-finding hearing to determine if the injuries were inflicted non-accidentally and, if so, by whom.
- •Extensive medical evidence, including expert reports from a pediatrician, radiologist, endocrinologist, and geneticist, was presented.
- •The parents consistently reported the marks and bruising to medical professionals.
- •The father provided an explanation involving a fall down the stairs while carrying AA.
- •AA's genetic testing revealed a variant of unknown significance in the COL5A1 gene, associated with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome.
- •The parents denied causing the injuries and maintained the marks and bruises were of unknown origin.
Legal Principles
Standard of proof in family proceedings is the balance of probabilities.
Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35
Inherent probabilities are to be considered but do not change the standard of proof.
BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41
Findings of fact must be based on evidence, not speculation.
Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12
The court must consider the totality of the evidence.
Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558
Parents are not required to prove their innocence.
Re M (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1580
Failure to prove an affirmative defense does not establish the local authority's case.
Re Y (Children)(No.3) [2016] EWHC 503 (Fam)
The court must consider all evidence, including expert medical evidence, within the wider context.
Re IB and EB [2014] EWHC 369
The court can depart from expert opinion if there is a sound evidential basis.
M-W (A Child) (2010) [2010] EWCA Civ 12
Experts advise, but the judge decides.
Re B (Care: Expert Witnesses) [1996] 1 FLR 667
The Lucas direction on lies told by witnesses.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
In considering non-accidental injuries, the court must consider whether a particular person is in the pool of possible perpetrators, and if so, whether they are the perpetrator on the balance of probabilities.
North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003] 2 FLR 849
Outcomes
The local authority's application for care orders was dismissed.
The judge found the local authority failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that either parent inflicted the injuries on AA. The evidence regarding the marks was inconclusive, and the father's explanation for the rib fractures (a fall down the stairs) was considered a plausible alternative.