R (A Child), Re [2011] EWCC 6 (Fam) (27 January 2011)

R (A Child), Re [2011] EWCC 6 (Fam) (27 January 2011)

The Local Authority failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that either the subdural haematomas or the femoral fracture were caused by non-accidental injury attributable to the parents. The head injury was of unknown etiology and not more likely than not to be non-accidental or perinatal. The femoral fracture, though traumatic, was most likely accidental in the circumstances described, with no evidence of culpable conduct. Therefore, the threshold criteria under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 were not met and the proceedings must be dismissed.

Citation
[2011] EWCC 6 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: Local Authority; Subject: R (child); Respondents: Parents of R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Threshold Criteria, Non Accidental Injury, Burden and Standard of Proof, Children Act 1989
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Threshold Criteria Non Accidental Injury Burden and Standard of Proof Children Act 1989

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Applicant

R (child)

Subject

Parents of R

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subdural haematomas in R were caused by non-accidental injury attributable to the parents
  2. 2 Whether femoral fracture in R was caused by non-accidental injury attributable to the parents
  3. 3 Whether threshold criteria under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are met

Ratio Decidendi

The Local Authority failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that either the subdural haematomas or the femoral fracture were caused by non-accidental injury attributable to the parents. The head injury was of unknown etiology and not more likely than not to be non-accidental or perinatal. The femoral fracture, though traumatic, was most likely accidental in the circumstances described, with no evidence of culpable conduct. Therefore, the threshold criteria under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 were not met and the proceedings must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Care proceedings dismissed; threshold criteria under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 not met.
  • Judgment to be provided to all professional witnesses.