EF (a child), Re [2016] EWFC B107 (15 September 2016)

EF (a child), Re [2016] EWFC B107 (15 September 2016)

The court found that the local authority had not discharged the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that EF's injuries were caused non-accidentally. The parents' account of an accidental fall was plausible and consistent, and there was insufficient evidence to exclude an accidental mechanism or to establish deliberate harm. The medical evidence, while raising suspicion, did not conclusively establish non-accidental injury, and the possibility of an unknown or accidental cause could not be excluded.

Citation
[2016] EWFC B107
Parties
Applicant Local Authority: London Borough of Newham; Mother/respondent: AB; Father/respondent: CD; Child (subject): EF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (fact Finding Hearing) / Judgment After Fact Finding Hearing
Outcome
Application for findings of non-accidental injury dismissed; no findings of non-accidental injury made against the parents.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Care Orders, Burden and Standard of Proof, Expert Medical Evidence, Fact Finding in Child Protection
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Care Orders Burden and Standard of Proof Expert Medical Evidence Fact Finding in Child Protection

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Newham

Applicant Local Authority

AB

Mother/respondent

CD

Father/respondent

EF

Child (subject)

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (fact Finding Hearing) / Judgment After Fact Finding Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether injuries sustained by EF were caused non-accidentally or accidentally
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for care proceedings is met
  3. 3 Credibility of parental explanations for injuries

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the local authority had not discharged the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that EF's injuries were caused non-accidentally. The parents' account of an accidental fall was plausible and consistent, and there was insufficient evidence to exclude an accidental mechanism or to establish deliberate harm. The medical evidence, while raising suspicion, did not conclusively establish non-accidental injury, and the possibility of an unknown or accidental cause could not be excluded.

Court Disposition

Application for findings of non-accidental injury dismissed; no findings of non-accidental injury made against the parents.

Orders

  • No care order made; proceedings to conclude unless further evidence arises.
  • If necessary, welfare hearing to be scheduled in November.