A Local Authority v W & Ors

A Local Authority v W & Ors

The local authority failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that S sustained injuries while in the care of her fathers either intentionally or as a result of culpable action. The medical evidence, while suggestive of traumatic injury, was not conclusive given the evolving understanding of birth-related intracranial bleeding, the lack of external injuries, the timing of symptoms, and the high quality of care provided. There was insufficient evidence to identify any family member as the perpetrator or to establish a failure to protect S from significant harm.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; First Respondent: W; Second Respondent: K; Third Respondent: D; Fourth Respondent: S (by her children’s guardian); Intervener: Mrs A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Application for a care order dismissed; threshold not met.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Non Accidental Injury, Surrogacy, Threshold Criteria, Expert Medical Evidence, Failure to Protect
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Non Accidental Injury Surrogacy Threshold Criteria Expert Medical Evidence Failure to Protect

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

W

First Respondent

K

Second Respondent

D

Third Respondent

S (by her children’s guardian)

Fourth Respondent

Mrs A

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 are met for S (a child)
  2. 2 Causation and timing of S's injuries (subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage, etc.)
  3. 3 Identification of possible perpetrator(s) of injury

Ratio Decidendi

The local authority failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that S sustained injuries while in the care of her fathers either intentionally or as a result of culpable action. The medical evidence, while suggestive of traumatic injury, was not conclusive given the evolving understanding of birth-related intracranial bleeding, the lack of external injuries, the timing of symptoms, and the high quality of care provided. There was insufficient evidence to identify any family member as the perpetrator or to establish a failure to protect S from significant harm.

Court Disposition

Application for a care order dismissed; threshold not met.