C1 and C2 (Children: Fact Finding), Re
[2024] EWFC 247 (B)
Re "Tim" (Fact-finding Care Proceedings)
29 February 2024
[2024] EWFC 194 (B)
Family Court
A baby had broken bones. Doctors and the court tried to figure out how. It was found that one or both parents caused the injuries, but it couldn't be proven who exactly. The court said the parents weren't good enough at looking after the baby.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concerning a 2-year-old boy, "Tim", who suffered four fractures (both radii and collarbones).
- •The fractures occurred between approximately April 11th and May 16th, 2022.
- •The left radius fracture was more recent than the others.
- •The parents, of mixed and Asian heritage, are in a relationship but not yet civilly married.
- •The mother is a nursing student, and the father works in online customer service.
- •Tim started nursery on May 12th, 2022.
- •The parents noticed a problem with Tim's left arm on the morning of May 13th, 2022.
- •Medical professionals initially failed to immediately identify the fractures.
- •The parents gave inconsistent accounts of the events leading to the discovery of the fractures.
- •The family experienced several stressors around the time of the fractures, including illness, Ramadan, and difficulties with Tim's bottle-feeding.
- •No further fractures have occurred since May 2022.
Legal Principles
Burden of proof rests with the local authority; standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Re IB and EB [2014] EWHC 369 (Fam)
Findings of fact must be based on evidence, avoiding speculation.
Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558
Expert evidence must be considered in the context of all other evidence.
Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558; Re U: Re B [2004] EWCA Civ 567
Parental evidence is crucial, requiring careful assessment of credibility and reliability.
Lancashire County Council v C, M and F (2014) EWFC3
Consideration of the possibility of an unknown cause of injury.
R v Cannings [2004] EWCA 1 Crim
Identifying a perpetrator requires a likelihood or real possibility; if impossible to determine, neither can be excluded.
Re D [2009] 2 FLR 668; Re SB (children) [2010] 1FLR 1161; North Yorkshire County Council v SAV [2003] 2 FLR 849
Outcomes
The threshold criteria under s.31 of the Children Act 1989 were met.
Tim suffered significant harm and was likely to suffer further harm due to the care given or likely to be given.
Tim's fractures were caused by non-accidental injury inflicted by either the mother or the father.
The medical evidence showed that excessive force was used; no medical condition explained the injuries; other explanations (nursery, massage, cot bars, Sam) were ruled out; the parents' inconsistent accounts and the presence of stressors during the relevant period were considered.
No findings were made against either parent for failing to protect Tim.
The local authority did not establish that the non-abusive parent should have identified a risk of harm from the other parent, considering the parents' illnesses during the relevant period.