Lancashire County Council v R & Ors

Lancashire County Council v R & Ors

On the balance of probabilities, R suffered two non-accidental head injuries while in the care of his parents. The father was responsible for both the chronic and acute subdural haematomas and associated retinal haemorrhages, through reckless and inappropriate handling, including excessive use of a bouncy chair. The mother did not directly cause the injuries but failed to protect R by not acting on suspicions and remaining in a harmful environment. The threshold for state intervention under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is met.

Parties
Applicant: Lancashire County Council; Respondent (child): R (a minor acting by his children’s guardian, Mrs A-G); Respondent (mother): S; Respondent (father): N
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (child Protection) / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Findings of fact made; threshold for care order met; interim care order to continue.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Care Orders, Threshold Criteria, Expert Evidence, Standard of Proof, Identification of Perpetrator, Failure to Protect
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Care Orders Threshold Criteria Expert Evidence Standard of Proof Identification of Perpetrator +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lancashire County Council

Applicant

R (a minor acting by his children’s guardian, Mrs A-G)

Respondent (child)

S

Respondent (mother)

N

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (child Protection) / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether R suffered non-accidental head injuries (NAHI)
  2. 2 Whether injuries were caused by one or both parents
  3. 3 Whether mother failed to protect R

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, R suffered two non-accidental head injuries while in the care of his parents. The father was responsible for both the chronic and acute subdural haematomas and associated retinal haemorrhages, through reckless and inappropriate handling, including excessive use of a bouncy chair. The mother did not directly cause the injuries but failed to protect R by not acting on suspicions and remaining in a harmful environment. The threshold for state intervention under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is met.

Court Disposition

Findings of fact made; threshold for care order met; interim care order to continue.

Orders

  • R to remain subject to an interim care order pending further welfare determination.
  • Further assessments to be conducted as necessary.