Key Facts
- •Baby R (DOB 2022) suffered a fractured skull, brain bleed, and significant facial injuries.
- •The mother's older son, N (DOB 2004), was present when the injuries occurred.
- •The mother's explanation of events was inconsistent with the medical evidence.
- •Medical experts concluded the injuries were inflicted, likely involving two separate incidents.
- •The mother's previous social services involvement involved concerns about N's behavior towards a sibling.
- •N claimed a dizzy spell caused him to drop R, but evidence suggested this was not the case.
Legal Principles
Standard of proof in care proceedings is the balance of probabilities.
Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 3 [2009] AC 11
Findings of fact must be based on evidence, not speculation.
Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12
The court considers the wider context of the evidence.
Re U (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof); Re B [2004] 2 FLR 263
Judges consider inherent probabilities, contemporaneous documentation, circumstantial evidence, and witness impressions.
Re B (Threshold Criteria: Fabricated Illness) [2002] EWHC 20 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 200
Evidence must be evaluated holistically, considering the relationship between different pieces of evidence.
Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558
Parents are not required to prove their innocence; the local authority must prove the allegations.
Re M (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1580
A witness's lie can strengthen evidence against them only if it's deliberate, relates to a material issue, and has no innocent explanation.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720
In cases with multiple possible perpetrators, the court must determine if there's sufficient evidence to identify one on the balance of probabilities; if not, consider if there's a real possibility each individual inflicted the injury.
Re A (children) (Pool of perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348 and Re B (a child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2127
Expert evidence advises, but the judge decides based on all evidence.
Re B (Care: Expert Witnesses) [1996] 1 FLR 667
Welfare of the child is paramount in care proceedings.
Children Act 1989, s.1(3)
Outcomes
Supervision order for T; Care order for R.
The court found N inflicted R's injuries and the mother was untruthful about her knowledge. A care order was deemed necessary for R to ensure his safety and enable local authority oversight, while a supervision order for T was considered sufficient given her age and the mother's capacity to care for her.