A Council v Mother & Ors
[2024] EWFC 122 (B)
Bournemouth, Christchurch & Pool Council v O & Ors
7 July 2023
[2023] EWFC 117
Family Court
A baby died with unexplained broken ribs. The court couldn't say for sure who did it, but it was likely the mum or dad. Because they didn't protect the baby, and didn't explain what happened, the court decided the baby's sister is also at risk and needs protection.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concerning three-year-old R following the death of her seven-week-old brother, T.
- •T's post-mortem revealed multiple rib fractures of at least two different ages; cause of death unascertainable.
- •The local authority alleges that T suffered 16 rib fractures caused by forceful chest compression on at least two occasions.
- •Both parents deny causing or knowing about the injuries.
- •Medical experts agreed on the mechanism of injury but differed slightly on the number of fractures and precise timing.
- •The court heard evidence from medical experts, social workers, and the parents.
- •The parents' accounts of the events leading up to T's death were vague and inconsistent in some details.
- •The court found that T's rib fractures were caused by excessive force on at least two occasions.
- •The court was unable to identify a single perpetrator but found a real possibility that either parent was responsible.
- •The court found that both parents failed to protect T and that R is at risk of significant harm.
Legal Principles
The burden of proof in care proceedings lies on the local authority; the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Case law summarised in Re JS [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam)
Findings of fact must be based on evidence, not speculation; all evidence must be considered holistically.
Case law summarised in Re JS [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam)
The roles of the court and experts are distinct; the judge weighs up all evidence, including medical evidence.
Re U; Re B (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof) [2004] EWCA Civ 567
A lie about some matters doesn't automatically prove guilt in other matters.
Case law summarised in Re JS [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam)
When assessing witness credibility, consider discrepancies due to factors like faulty memory, stress, or the influence of others.
Lancashire County Council v C, M and F (Children; Fact Finding Hearing) [2014] EWFC 3
In cases with multiple potential perpetrators, apply the simple balance of probabilities standard when identifying a perpetrator.
Re A (Children)(Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348
A finding of failure to protect is significant for future welfare assessments but should not be a 'bolt on' to perpetration.
Re L-W (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 159
Outcomes
Multiple rib fractures were inflicted on T on at least two occasions.
Medical evidence overwhelmingly supported multiple fractures of different ages caused by forceful chest compression; parents' explanations were found to be insufficient.
Neither parent could be identified as the perpetrator.
While the court had concerns about both parents' evidence, the evidence was insufficient to identify one as the perpetrator on the balance of probabilities; a real possibility existed that either was responsible.
Both parents failed to protect T.
The injuries were inflicted, and neither parent sought medical help or adequately investigated the cause; they were protective of each other rather than focusing on explaining the injuries.
R is at risk of significant harm.
The serious injuries suffered by T in the household, the parents' failure to protect, and their lack of willingness to accept responsibility created a significant risk to R.