Key Facts
- •A 1-year-old child (SK) suffered two fractures to her left lower leg: a spiral fracture of the mid-shaft left tibia and a metaphyseal fracture of the left distal tibia.
- •The fractures occurred on two separate occasions, the spiral fracture between January 23rd and February 6th, 2023, and the metaphyseal fracture on February 19th, 2023.
- •The child was in the care of her parents (Mother and Father) at the times of both injuries.
- •There was no evidence of a medical condition predisposing the child to fractures.
- •The parents' accounts of the events leading up to the discovery of the injuries contained inconsistencies.
- •The parents did not seek immediate medical attention when the injuries were inflicted, but this was considered not unreasonable given their inexperience as first-time parents.
Legal Principles
Threshold test for care orders: significant harm attributable to unreasonable parental care.
Children Act 1989, section 31(2)
Standard of proof in care proceedings: balance of probabilities.
Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)
Assessment of witness credibility: consideration of inconsistencies, memory limitations, and potential motivations for dishonesty.
R v Lucas [1981] QB 720; Re A [2021] EWCA Civ 451
Expert evidence: court's role in weighing expert opinions against other evidence.
Re B (Care: Expert) [1996] 1 FLR 667
Uncertain perpetrator cases: identifying a list of possible perpetrators and assessing the likelihood of each.
Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575
Outcomes
The court found that the child suffered two fractures on separate occasions.
Based on the expert radiological evidence showing different stages of healing in the fractures.
The court could not identify the perpetrator of either fracture.
While both parents had opportunity, the inconsistencies in their accounts and lack of definitive medical evidence showing excessive force prevented a determination on the balance of probabilities.
The court found the injuries were not inflicted by either parent using force beyond what would be reasonable.
The inconsistencies in the parents' accounts were attributed to memory issues and stress, not deliberate untruths; and medical evidence couldn't definitively link the injuries to excessive force.
The court found the parents' failure to seek immediate medical attention was not unreasonable.
Given their inexperience as first-time parents and the lack of clear indications requiring immediate medical intervention.