London Borough of Haringey v A & Ors
[2023] EWFC 301 (B)
The London Borough of Havering v A Mother & Others
3 May 2023
[2023] EWFC 65 (B)
Family Court
A baby got broken bones, but it's unclear how. Doctors thought it wasn't accidental, but the judge wasn't convinced it was the parents' fault. The judge said it could have been an accident, and the parents weren't neglecting the kids either.
Key Facts
- •Five-week-old baby S sustained multiple rib and humerus fractures.
- •Older sibling T (age 3) was also subject to the proceedings.
- •No parent could explain the injuries.
- •Medical experts concluded the injuries were non-accidental but couldn't identify the perpetrator.
- •The local authority alleged neglect on three occasions when the children were unsupervised.
- •Parents denied causing the injuries and offered alternative explanations (rolling onto S in bed, T injuring S).
Legal Principles
Threshold criteria for care orders: significant harm attributable to inadequate parental care or lack of parental control.
Children Act 1989, s31(2)
Burden of proof in public law Children Act proceedings is on the local authority; standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35
Court must not reverse the burden of proof; failure to prove an alternative explanation does not automatically prove the applicant's case.
Re X (Children) (no 3) [2015] EWHC 3651
Findings must be based on evidence and inferences, not speculation. Inherent probabilities should be considered.
Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41
Expert evidence must be considered in the context of all evidence; the court makes the final decision.
A County Council v KD & L [2005] EWHC 144 Fam
Threshold criteria may be met if harm is caused by one of a finite 'pool' of persons, even if the perpetrator cannot be identified.
Re S-B [2009] UKSC 17
The term 'non-accidental injury' is not a tautology; the court must determine whether the injury is attributable to inadequate parental care.
Outcomes
Threshold criteria not met.
The court found it was not more likely than not that either parent inflicted S's injuries and knowingly lied about it. Alternative explanations (accidental injury during co-sleeping or by sibling) remained possibilities, and the possibility that the true cause remained unknown was also considered.
Allegation of neglect not proven.
The three instances of brief unsupervised time with siblings were deemed not to cross the threshold of significant harm from neglect, considering the context of normal parenting.