H, Re

H, Re

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that H sustained a skull fracture likely caused by a non-accidental single blunt trauma (inflicted blow or significant fall from height) between 23 December 2023 and 6 January 2024. However, the evidence was insufficient to identify M or F as perpetrator on the balance of probabilities. There is a real possibility that either M or F inflicted the injury. The perpetrator failed to seek timely medical attention, but the court cannot definitively attribute culpability to either parent.

Parties
Applicant: Kent County Council; 1st Respondent: M; 2nd Respondent: F; 3rd Respondent: H (Minor, by Children’s Guardian); First Intervenor: MGM; Second Intervenor: MU
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Pool finding: real possibility M or F inflicted injury; threshold for care proceedings satisfied; no definitive perpetrator identified.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Threshold Criteria, Pool of Perpetrators, Failure to Protect, Expert Evidence, Mental Health and Parenting, Substance Misuse
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Threshold Criteria Pool of Perpetrators Failure to Protect Expert Evidence Mental Health and Parenting +1 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 5 Authorities cited 41 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kent County Council

Applicant

M

1st Respondent

F

2nd Respondent

H (Minor, by Children’s Guardian)

3rd Respondent

MGM

First Intervenor

MU

Second Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did H sustain a fractured skull?
  2. 2 Was the fracture caused by non-accidental injury or accident/unknown cause?
  3. 3 Can the court identify the perpetrator on the balance of probabilities?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that H sustained a skull fracture likely caused by a non-accidental single blunt trauma (inflicted blow or significant fall from height) between 23 December 2023 and 6 January 2024. However, the evidence was insufficient to identify M or F as perpetrator on the balance of probabilities. There is a real possibility that either M or F inflicted the injury. The perpetrator failed to seek timely medical attention, but the court cannot definitively attribute culpability to either parent.

Court Disposition

Pool finding: real possibility M or F inflicted injury; threshold for care proceedings satisfied; no definitive perpetrator identified.

Orders

  • Positive finding that MGM and MU did not inflict injury on H.
  • No finding on balance of probabilities that M or F inflicted injury.