Kent County Council v A & Ors

Kent County Council v A & Ors

The local authority failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that E inflicted non-accidental injury (shaking) on D on 8th or 11th November 2023. The absence of ancillary injuries, alternative possible causes, and lack of evidence of agitation or intent undermined the medical opinion. There was insufficient evidence that A failed to protect D. E was found to have made a threat to kill F’s household, and to have threatened self-harm, but not for the purpose of controlling A. The allegations of coercion regarding social media and assault on A were not proved.

Parties
Applicant: Kent County Council; 1st Respondent (mother): A; 2nd Respondent (father): B; 3rd and 4th Respondents (children): C and D (minors, by Children’s Guardian); Intervenor: E; Witness/carer: F (Step Maternal Grandmother)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Care and Supervision (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Allegations of inflicted injury and failure to protect not proved; partial findings on abusive behaviour.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Failure to Protect, Domestic Abuse, Threshold Criteria, Expert Medical Evidence
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Failure to Protect Domestic Abuse 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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kent County Council

Applicant

A

1st Respondent (mother)

B

2nd Respondent (father)

C and D (minors, by Children’s Guardian)

3rd and 4th Respondents (children)

E

Intervenor

F (Step Maternal Grandmother)

Witness/carer

Procedural Posture

Care and Supervision (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether E inflicted non-accidental injury (shaking) on D on 8th and/or 11th November 2023
  2. 2 Whether A failed to protect D from significant harm
  3. 3 Whether E was threatening, controlling and/or abusive to A

Ratio Decidendi

The local authority failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that E inflicted non-accidental injury (shaking) on D on 8th or 11th November 2023. The absence of ancillary injuries, alternative possible causes, and lack of evidence of agitation or intent undermined the medical opinion. There was insufficient evidence that A failed to protect D. E was found to have made a threat to kill F’s household, and to have threatened self-harm, but not for the purpose of controlling A. The allegations of coercion regarding social media and assault on A were not proved.

Court Disposition

Allegations of inflicted injury and failure to protect not proved; partial findings on abusive behaviour.

Orders

  • No findings of inflicted injury or failure to protect against E or A.
  • Finding that E made a threat to kill F’s household if contact with D was stopped.