Key Facts
- •CC, an infant, suffered multi-compartmental bilateral subdural collections and two right parietal skull fractures.
- •The injuries occurred between late January and late February 2024, most likely around February 27th, 2024.
- •CC was in the sole care of his father (FC) when the injuries were sustained.
- •FC was under the influence of alcohol and possibly drugs at the time.
- •FC lied repeatedly about his alcohol and drug use, his actions on the day of the injury, and other relevant events.
- •Medical experts concluded the injuries were non-accidental, likely caused by a significant impact and/or shaking.
Legal Principles
Threshold test for care orders/supervision orders under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989.
Children Act 1989
Standard of proof in family cases is the balance of probabilities.
Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)
Findings of fact must be based on evidence, not speculation.
Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)
Expert evidence must be considered in the context of all other evidence.
Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)
A witness may lie for various reasons; lying about some matters does not mean they lied about everything.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Inherent probabilities should be considered, but do not affect the standard of proof.
In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35
The court's assessment of a witness's credibility can include their demeanor, but not solely.
B-M (Children: Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371
Hearsay evidence is admissible but its weight must be carefully assessed.
Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993
In uncertain perpetrator cases, the court must consider whether there is a 'real possibility' that each person on a list of possible perpetrators inflicted the injuries.
Re S-B (Children) [2010] 1 FLR 1161
Outcomes
The court found that FC inflicted significant harm on CC.
FC's extensive dishonesty, the timing of CC's symptoms aligning with expert medical evidence, and the unlikelihood of accidental injury.
The court found that the threshold under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 was crossed.
The findings of fact established that CC suffered significant harm attributable to the care given to him, not being what would be reasonably expected of a parent.