Legal Analysis: Child Abuse Allegation Upheld in A London Borough v J & Ors: 2024

Citation: [2024] EWFC 2 (B)
Judgment on


In the matter of A London Borough v J & Ors: 2024, before the Family Court at West London, His Honour Judge Willans presides over a sensitive case involving alleged abusive head trauma to an infant (referred to as ‘N’). The judgment meticulously navigates various considerations surrounding inflicted injury, perpetrator responsibility, delay in seeking medical assistance, and potential emotional harm. This article analyses the legal principles elucidated by the Court and connects them with key parts within the judgment.

Key Facts

The case involves a couple, M and J, who engaged in a relationship fraught with domestic violence and alcohol-related issues. N, born in April 2023, was admitted to the hospital in May 2023 with symptoms suggestive of abusive head trauma. Extensive medical examinations pointed towards shaking as the probable cause of injury. The judgment notes that only M and J had the opportunity to inflict said injury, but M was identified as the likely perpetrator, given the circumstances and timeframe.

Standard of Proof and Balance of Probabilities

Central to this case is the legal standard of proof in civil and family cases: the balance of probabilities. His Honour Judge Willans affirms that it is incumbent upon the applicant (London Borough) to establish their allegations to a standard that is more likely than not. This principle corroborates established precedent in UK law, such as Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35.

Holistic Evaluation of Evidence

The Court undertakes a holistic approach to evidence assessment rather than a compartmentalized evaluation. It incorporates a broad spectrum of evidence, including medical expert testimony, parental testimony, and examination of familial circumstances. This emphasizes a multi-faceted review that aligns with the approach advised in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558.

Identification of Perpetrator

Upon application of the standard of probability, the Court scrutinizes the evidence, including testimony about the couple’s relationship, M’s history of alcohol abuse, domestic abuse, and parental interaction with N. This assessment aims to identify a sole perpetrator rather than leaving the responsibility within a ‘pool’ of potential perpetrators, which is a stipulation supported by cases such as Re J (A Minor) [2013] EWHC 2694.

Consideration of Unknown Causes

The judgment also takes into account that the medical sciences are not exhaustive and that unknown causes might exist for certain medical conditions. This is a nod to the requisite caution imposed by precedent in, for example, R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1, which concerns the consideration of unknown or unidentified medical conditions.

Lies as Evidence

The Court utilizes a structured approach to assessing lies told by parties. Importantly, lies are not automatically equated with guilt but are considered within the broader context of evidence and possible reasons for deceit, encapsulating principles from Lucas v Lucas [1981] LJ 872.


Judge Willans finds the threshold for significant harm under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 has been crossed, thus justifying state intervention. The judgment concludes that M is likely to have inflicted the abusive head trauma to N, and both M and J failed to seek prompt medical care. The harm caused is considered likely to result in future risk of significant emotional harm to N.


The case of A London Borough v J & Ors: 2024 illustrates the application of intricate legal principles in the context of familial and child protection law. The judgment is notable for its rigorous application of the standard of proof, its holistic analysis of evidence, and its careful navigation around the identification of an abuser in the context of inflicted child injuries. The Court’s methodology serves as a reminder of the diligent approach necessary when adjudicating matters of child welfare and family dynamics within the realms of UK family law.

Related Summaries