A Council v Mother & Ors
[2024] EWFC 122 (B)
X and Y, Re
19 February 2024
[2024] EWFC 147 (B)
Family Court
A baby was seriously hurt. The dad lied a lot and didn't take care of the baby properly. The mum didn't do enough to protect the baby after it was hurt. The judge decided the dad hurt the baby, and the mum should have done more to help.
Key Facts
- •Mother and father have two children, Child A (born 2020) and Child B (born summer 2022).
- •Child A had been known to West Sussex Children's Services since 2021 due to concerns about overfeeding, poor home conditions, and unexplained injuries.
- •Child B was admitted to hospital with bilateral subconjunctival hemorrhages and multiple rib fractures.
- •Medical experts concluded that Child B's injuries were inflicted, likely due to chest compression.
- •The father's behavior after an incident at a train station raised concerns about his credibility and attempts to avoid giving evidence.
- •The court found the father to be dishonest in multiple instances, including misleading medical professionals and the court about his mental health.
- •The court found that the father inflicted the injuries on Child B.
Legal Principles
The burden of proof lies with the person or authority making the allegation; the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
None specified in the judgment, but common family law principle.
The court must seek to identify the perpetrator of any injuries; if unable, establish a list of those with a real possibility of causing the injuries.
Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575, Re A (Children) (pool of perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348
Lies must be considered in the context of their relevance to the factual matrix; guidance on applying the Lucas direction.
A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451
Outcomes
The father inflicted the injuries on Child B.
The court considered the totality of the evidence, including medical evidence, the father's dishonest behavior, and the lack of evidence implicating the mother. The timing of the injuries aligns with times the father had sole care of the child.
The mother failed to protect Child B after the injuries occurred.
While the mother did attempt to seek medical attention, her delay, coupled with her failure to remove Child B from the harmful environment, constituted a failure to protect.
The father was found to be dishonest in multiple instances, affecting his credibility.
His deception regarding his mental health, train station incident, and paternity of Child C demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty.
Both children suffered emotional harm due to domestic discord and poor home conditions.
Evidence of shouting, arguments, and inconsistent care of Child A supported these findings.