A Local Authority v SH & Ors
[2024] EWFC 189 (B)
M (A Child)(Non-Accidental Injuries; Wider Canvas), Re
10 June 2024
[2024] EWFC 209 (B)
Family Court
A baby had lots of broken bones. Doctors thought someone hurt the baby, but the judge looked at everything – the parents, family, and all the evidence. The judge decided there wasn't enough proof to say anyone hurt the baby. They said the reason the bones were broken is unknown.
Key Facts
- •M, a 4-month-old child, presented to the hospital with six or seven fractures.
- •The fractures were highly suspicious for non-accidental injury (NAI).
- •Kent County Council applied for care orders.
- •The parents and intervenors (grandparents and maternal grandfather) denied inflicting the injuries.
- •Multiple medical experts gave evidence, with some inconsistencies.
- •The possibility of an unknown cause or the impact of Omeprazole medication was considered.
- •A wide canvas of evidence, including parental character and family support, was examined.
Legal Principles
In fact-finding hearings, the burden of proof is on the Local Authority, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
A Local Authority v (1) A Mother (2) A Father (3) L & M (Children, by their Children's Guardian) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam); A Local Authority v AA and Anor [2022] EWHC 2321 (Fam)
Findings must be based on facts and inferences properly drawn from facts, not suspicion or speculation.
Implicit in the judgment
All evidence, including medical and expert evidence, must be considered holistically in NAI cases.
Implicit in the judgment
The possibility of an unknown cause must be considered.
R v Cannings [2004] EWCA 1 Crim; R v Henderson-Butler and Oyediran [2010] EWCA Crim. 126; Re R, Care Proceedings Causation [2011] EWHC 1715 (Fam)
Evidence of good character forms part of the wide canvas of evidence.
J, P And Q (Care Proceedings) [2024] EWCA Civ 228
To identify a perpetrator, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities.
Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348; Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator ) [2019] EWCA Civ 575; Re K (Non-Accidental Injuries: Perpetrator: New Evidence) [2004] EWCA Civ 1181
There is no duty on parents to disprove allegations; this would reverse the burden of proof.
Re M (Fact Finding hearing: Burden of Proof) [2013] 2 FLR 874
Outcomes
The Local Authority failed to discharge the burden of proof that M's injuries were inflicted.
The court found inconsistencies in the medical evidence and a lack of compelling evidence to support the NAI allegations. The wide canvas of evidence pointed away from inflicted injury, considering the parents' character, family support, and lack of other indicators of abuse.
The injuries were deemed to be of unknown cause.
While multiple fractures suggested NAI, inconsistencies in the expert testimony regarding timing and the possibility of an organic cause (Omeprazole use) prevented a definitive conclusion.
No real possibility that the parents or intervenors inflicted the injuries.
Insufficient evidence linked any of the caregivers to the injuries.
The court invited the Local Authority to consider a transition plan for M's return home.
No findings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 were made.