N (A Child: Low Level Falls), Re [2016] EWFC B29 (25 April 2016)

N (A Child: Low Level Falls), Re [2016] EWFC B29 (25 April 2016)

The court found that the August 2015 intracranial injuries could have been caused by the low-level fall described by the parents, as supported by the expert evidence, and were not proved to be inflicted. The September 2015 skull fracture was more likely to be non-accidental due to the absence of a credible accidental explanation, but the court could not identify which parent was responsible. Both parents failed to protect N by not seeking timely medical attention and by failing to administer prescribed medication, crossing the threshold for significant harm under s.31 Children Act 1989.

Citation
[2016] EWFC B29
Parties
Local Authority: Portsmouth City Council; Mother: M (Mother); Father: F (Father); Children: N and S (Children)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Judgment After Fact Finding Hearing
Outcome
Threshold criteria for care orders met; findings of non-accidental injury and neglect made.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Non Accidental Injury, Threshold Criteria, Neglect, Expert Medical Evidence
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Non Accidental Injury Threshold Criteria Neglect Expert Medical Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Portsmouth City Council

Local Authority

M (Mother)

Mother

F (Father)

Father

N and S (Children)

Children

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Judgment After Fact Finding Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injuries to child N were inflicted or accidental
  2. 2 Whether the parents failed to protect N from harm
  3. 3 Whether the parents neglected N's medical needs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the August 2015 intracranial injuries could have been caused by the low-level fall described by the parents, as supported by the expert evidence, and were not proved to be inflicted. The September 2015 skull fracture was more likely to be non-accidental due to the absence of a credible accidental explanation, but the court could not identify which parent was responsible. Both parents failed to protect N by not seeking timely medical attention and by failing to administer prescribed medication, crossing the threshold for significant harm under s.31 Children Act 1989.

Court Disposition

Threshold criteria for care orders met; findings of non-accidental injury and neglect made.

Orders

  • Care orders for N and S to remain in force
  • Findings of fact as set out in the judgment