B (A Child) [2017] EWFC B11 (6 January 2017)

B (A Child) [2017] EWFC B11 (6 January 2017)

The court found that X sustained a non-accidental injury to his penis while in the care of F and INT, that the injury was consistent with a forceful nip, and that either F or INT caused the injury and the other knew but both failed to provide a truthful account. The evidence was insufficient to identify the perpetrator between F and INT, but both were in the pool of perpetrators. F and INT failed to seek medical attention for X. M did not fail to protect or seek medical attention based on the information she had. The threshold criteria were satisfied. X should remain with M under a twelve-month supervision order, with supervised contact for F.

Citation
[2017] EWFC B11
Parties
Mother: M; Father: F; Intervener (father's Then Girlfriend): INT; First Local Authority: LA1; Second Local Authority: LA2; Children's Guardian: CG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Final Hearing
Outcome
Supervision order made for twelve months; X to remain with M; F's contact to remain supervised; no defined contact order; findings as to non-accidental injury and pool of perpetrators.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Non Accidental Injury, Threshold Criteria, Supervision Order, Welfare Checklist, Identification of Perpetrator, Delay in Proceedings
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Non Accidental Injury Threshold Criteria Supervision Order Welfare Checklist Identification of Perpetrator +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Mother

F

Father

INT

Intervener (father's Then Girlfriend)

LA1

First Local Authority

LA2

Second Local Authority

CG

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bruising to X was a non-accidental inflicted injury
  2. 2 Whether F or INT caused or failed to protect X from injury
  3. 3 Whether M failed to protect or seek medical attention for X

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that X sustained a non-accidental injury to his penis while in the care of F and INT, that the injury was consistent with a forceful nip, and that either F or INT caused the injury and the other knew but both failed to provide a truthful account. The evidence was insufficient to identify the perpetrator between F and INT, but both were in the pool of perpetrators. F and INT failed to seek medical attention for X. M did not fail to protect or seek medical attention based on the information she had. The threshold criteria were satisfied. X should remain with M under a twelve-month supervision order, with supervised contact for F.

Court Disposition

Supervision order made for twelve months; X to remain with M; F's contact to remain supervised; no defined contact order; findings as to non-accidental injury and pool of perpetrators.

Orders

  • Supervision order for twelve months
  • X to remain in the care of M