Re T & Anor
[2023] EWFC 143 (B)
The Local Authority v The Mother & Ors
17 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 150 (Fam)
Family Court
A baby got very sick from salty milk. Her older brother accidentally put salt in the milk because their mom wasn't watching closely enough. Mom made a mistake, but she didn't poison her baby on purpose. The court said mom needs help but also needs to do better at watching her kids.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concerning two children, C (age 4) and D (age 9 months), due to D's severe hypernatremia (high sodium levels).
- •D's high sodium levels were caused by accidental salt contamination of her formula milk by her older sibling, C.
- •The mother failed to adequately supervise C, leading to the contamination, and failed to seek prompt medical attention for D.
- •The mother's mental health difficulties, history of abusive relationships, and lack of openness with professionals were also considered.
- •The local authority initially sought findings that the mother deliberately contaminated D's milk but later withdrew this claim.
Legal Principles
The burden of proof is on the local authority.
Re IB and EB [2014] EWHC 369 [82]-[93]
The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Re IB and EB [2014] EWHC 369 [82]-[93]
Findings must be based on facts, not speculation, but inferences can be drawn in certain circumstances.
Re IB and EB [2014] EWHC 369 [82]-[93]
A witness may lie for many reasons; lying about some matters doesn't mean they lied about everything.
Re IB and EB [2014] EWHC 369 [82]-[93]
Outcomes
The local authority's claim that the mother deliberately contaminated D's milk was dismissed.
Lack of direct evidence and support from expert evidence indicating accidental contamination by C.
The mother's failure to adequately supervise C and seek prompt medical attention for D was established.
The mother failed to appreciate the risk of contamination given C's previous behaviour and the proximity of the salt to the milk powder. While her mental health difficulties were acknowledged, they did not excuse her failure to act as a reasonable carer.
The claim that the mother continued to feed D contaminated milk when it should have been obvious she shouldn't was not established.
D initially fed well, the mother changed bottles, had experience with colic, and sought advice; her focus was on D's symptoms rather than the milk's potential contamination.