M (A Child)(Non-Accidental Injuries; Wider Canvas), Re
[2024] EWFC 209 (B)
CM (A Child), Re
1 November 2023
[2023] EWFC 263 (B)
Family Court
A baby got hurt badly, and the court couldn't figure out which of her young parents did it, but her grandma wasn't to blame.
Key Facts
- •CM, born December 6, 2022, sustained multiple fractures (femur, ribs, tibias, fibula) by January 2, 2023.
- •Injuries deemed non-accidental by three expert witnesses (radiologist, pediatrician, endocrinologist).
- •Experts concluded at least two separate episodes of trauma, potentially including a birth injury.
- •Mother (K) has ADHD and autism, history of anger issues and self-harm.
- •Father (E) experienced anxiety and depression.
- •Maternal grandmother (N) expressed concerns about parents' parenting skills and handling of CM.
- •Parents' accounts of the events leading to CM's injuries deemed unreliable and untruthful by the judge.
- •Judge unable to definitively identify the perpetrator of the injuries between K and E.
- •Local authority failed to provide a complete record of social worker visits and interactions, hindering the proceedings.
Legal Principles
Burden of proof lies with the local authority to prove their case on the balance of probabilities.
Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)
Standard of proof is the balance of probabilities; inherent probability/improbability of events must be considered.
Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35
Findings of fact must be based on evidence and proper inferences, not speculation or suspicion.
Court considers all available evidence, including expert opinions and parents' evidence, assessing credibility and reliability.
In cases with multiple potential perpetrators, the court must determine if there's sufficient evidence to identify one on the balance of probabilities; if not, it considers the real possibility of each candidate causing the injury.
Re B (a child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2127
A witness lying about some matters doesn't mean they lied about everything.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
Careful consideration should be given to avoid hindsight or outcome bias in assessing failure to protect cases.
Surrey CC v E [2013] EWHC Fam 2400
Outcomes
No perpetrator identified for CM's injuries, though a real possibility exists that either K or E inflicted them.
Parents' accounts were deemed unreliable, and the judge couldn't definitively determine who was responsible despite the significant evidence of non-accidental injury.
No finding of failure to protect against the maternal grandmother (N).
While N was aware of K's mental health issues and some concerning parenting behaviors, nothing she observed or knew would have alerted her to the risk of CM being harmed. The court cautions against hindsight bias.