M, In the Matter Of [2024] EWFC 189 (B) (31 January 2024)

M, In the Matter Of [2024] EWFC 189 (B) (31 January 2024)

The court found that, on the totality of the expert medical evidence, there were two plausible hypotheses for M's injuries: (1) accidental injury due to a fall from the bed in the context of a pre-existing arachnoid cyst and subdural hygromas, and (2) non-accidental injury. The expert consensus, particularly from Mr Jalloh and Dr Hogarth, was that neither hypothesis could be preferred on the balance of probabilities, and there was no medical basis to favour inflicted injury over accidental injury. Therefore, the Local Authority had not established, on the balance of probabilities, that M's injuries were caused by non-accidental injury or that the threshold criteria for a care order were met.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 189 (B)
Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent (mother): SH; 2nd Respondent (father): SB; 3rd Respondent (child): M (the child, through Guardian Jessica Steadman)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Application for care order dismissed; threshold not met.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Non Accidental Injury, Threshold Criteria, Expert Medical Evidence
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Non Accidental Injury Threshold Criteria 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

SH

1st Respondent (mother)

SB

2nd Respondent (father)

M (the child, through Guardian Jessica Steadman)

3rd Respondent (child)

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold criteria under s.31 Children Act 1989 are met for making a care order in respect of M
  2. 2 Whether M's injuries were caused by non-accidental injury (NAI) or accidental mechanisms (including medical vulnerability)
  3. 3 Whether either or both parents inflicted or failed to protect M from injury

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, on the totality of the expert medical evidence, there were two plausible hypotheses for M's injuries: (1) accidental injury due to a fall from the bed in the context of a pre-existing arachnoid cyst and subdural hygromas, and (2) non-accidental injury. The expert consensus, particularly from Mr Jalloh and Dr Hogarth, was that neither hypothesis could be preferred on the balance of probabilities, and there was no medical basis to favour inflicted injury over accidental injury. Therefore, the Local Authority had not established, on the balance of probabilities, that M's injuries were caused by non-accidental injury or that the threshold criteria for a care order were met.

Court Disposition

Application for care order dismissed; threshold not met.

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed; no public law orders made.
  • M remains in the care of his parents under a Child Protection Plan.