A v W & Ors No 1 (Fact Finding)

A v W & Ors No 1 (Fact Finding)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father caused the acute head injuries to MN through a shaking incident, and that neither parent could be excluded from the pool of perpetrators for earlier injuries (chronic neurotrauma and fractures). Both parents failed to protect MN from significant physical harm and both children from emotional harm. The threshold for care and placement orders was met. The welfare analysis determined that neither parent nor the paternal grandmother could safely care for the children, and their long-term welfare required placement together outside the birth family, most likely in an adoptive placement.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent: CM; 2nd Respondent: LW; 3rd & 4th Respondents: MYW and MNW (by their Children’s Guardian); Intervenor: DW; Party/intervenor: KY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Final Judgment
Outcome
Care and placement orders indicated; final orders to be made after further submissions on mother’s application for residential assessment.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Non Accidental Injury, Threshold Criteria, Welfare of the Child, Parental Responsibility, Special Guardianship, Article 8 ECHR, Domestic Violence, Drug Misuse
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Placement Orders Non Accidental Injury Threshold Criteria Welfare of the Child Parental Responsibility +4 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

CM

1st Respondent

LW

2nd Respondent

MYW and MNW (by their Children’s Guardian)

3rd & 4th Respondents

DW

Intervenor

KY

Party/intervenor

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threshold criteria for care and placement orders are met under Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Identification of perpetrator(s) of non-accidental injuries to MN
  3. 3 Assessment of risk to children if returned to parental or family care

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father caused the acute head injuries to MN through a shaking incident, and that neither parent could be excluded from the pool of perpetrators for earlier injuries (chronic neurotrauma and fractures). Both parents failed to protect MN from significant physical harm and both children from emotional harm. The threshold for care and placement orders was met. The welfare analysis determined that neither parent nor the paternal grandmother could safely care for the children, and their long-term welfare required placement together outside the birth family, most likely in an adoptive placement.

Court Disposition

Care and placement orders indicated; final orders to be made after further submissions on mother’s application for residential assessment.

Orders

  • Care orders for both children to the local authority
  • Placement orders for adoption indicated, subject to final submissions