Key Facts
- •Leeds City Council (LA) alleged that B, the father, caused injury to the genital area of his toddler niece, Z, during a weekend visit.
- •Z's injuries included a laceration, erythema, and oedema in her genital area.
- •The LA sought findings of likelihood of significant harm to B's children, X and Y, based on the alleged harm to Z.
- •The medical evidence regarding Z's injuries was contested, with differing opinions from examining doctors Dr R and Dr Teebay.
- •B denied causing Z's injuries and the LA's case rested on the possibility of the injuries' infliction during a 1.5-hour period B was alone with Z and his son X.
- •There were concerns about inconsistencies and missing details in the initial medical documentation and statements.
- •The court considered evidence from multiple witnesses, including medical experts, social workers, the foster carers (C and D), and the parents (A and B).
- •The children's guardian did not support the LA's findings.
Legal Principles
Threshold criteria for Care or Supervision Orders: A child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm; and that harm is attributable to care given.
Section 31(2) Children Act 1989
Standard of proof: Balance of probabilities.
Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35
'Likely' in section 31(2) means a real possibility, not 'more likely than not'.
Re J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9
Lies: A witness may lie for many reasons; a lie about one matter doesn't mean they lied about everything.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720; Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451
Expert evidence: The court weighs expert evidence against other evidence; the judge decides.
A County Council v KD and L [2005] 1 FLR 851; Re B (Care: Expert Witnesses) [1996] 1 FLR 667
Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) Guidance: Significant departures from ABE guidance may reduce the weight given to interviews.
Re JB (A Child) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2021] EWCA Civ 46
Cases involving sexual abuse allegations require forensic rigor and caution against the 'child protection imperative'.
Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27
Medical evidence in sexual abuse cases is often non-specific, ambiguous, or equivocal.
Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27; RCPCH guidance
Identification of perpetrator: The LA must show a real possibility that each person on a list of potential perpetrators caused the harm.
Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575; Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA 1248
Outcomes
The proceedings were dismissed.
The LA failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that Z suffered the alleged injuries, and therefore, the threshold for the likelihood of significant harm to X and Y was not met.