AA, Re
[2023] EWFC 278 (B)
Bracknell Forest Council v Mother & Ors
27 March 2024
[2024] EWFC 68 (B)
Family Court
A baby had some marks on her skin. Doctors first thought they were bruises caused by the parents, but later weren't sure. The parents gave confusing explanations. The judge decided there wasn't enough proof the parents hurt the baby.
Key Facts
- •On April 25, 2023, CA (a female infant) was found to have multiple marks on her body.
- •The marks' appearance was initially considered consistent with bruising by medical professionals.
- •The parents, Mother and Father, provided conflicting accounts and explanations for the marks.
- •Subsequent medical assessments raised questions about the initial bruising diagnosis and suggested alternative explanations, such as cutis marmorata.
- •The Local Authority alleged that the marks were inflicted bruises caused by the Mother and/or Father.
- •The parents denied inflicting the injuries.
Legal Principles
The burden of proof lies with the local authority, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)
Findings of fact must be based on evidence and inferences drawn from it, not on suspicion or speculation.
Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)
The court must consider all evidence in context, weighing expert opinions against other evidence.
Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)
A witness may lie for various reasons; a lie about some matters doesn't mean all statements are false.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Inherent probabilities should be considered, but this doesn't change the balance of probabilities standard.
In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35
The court's decision is its own, not a mere adoption of expert opinions.
Re B (Care: Expert) [1996] 1 FLR 667
Human memory is fluid and malleable, vulnerable to alteration.
President’s Memorandum on Witness Statements, 10 November 2021
In cases with multiple accounts, discrepancies may arise from various reasons, including faulty recollection or 'story creep'.
Lancashire County Council v The Children [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam)
Demeanour should not be the sole basis for credibility assessment, but forms part of the overall assessment.
B-M (Children: Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371
In uncertain perpetrator cases, the court should identify a list of possible perpetrators and assess the real possibility of each's involvement.
Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575
Outcomes
The Local Authority's application was dismissed.
The court could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the marks were inflicted bruises caused by the parents. The medical evidence regarding bruising was deemed equivocal, with a plausible alternative explanation (cutis marmorata) and inconsistencies in parental testimony.