G (Children), Re [2016] EWFC B124 (17 June 2016)

G (Children), Re [2016] EWFC B124 (17 June 2016)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that B's injuries were not birth-related, not caused by an underlying medical condition, and not explained by any plausible accidental history. The most likely cause was reckless handling by a parent, exceeding normal intensity but not grossly excessive or intentional. The threshold for significant harm under the Children Act 1989 was met, but the injuries were not deliberately inflicted. The local authority's amended findings were accepted.

Citation
[2016] EWFC B124
Parties
Mother: M; Father: F; Applicant: Local Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (public Law) / Fact Finding Hearing
Outcome
Findings made as sought by the local authority; threshold criteria met; children to be returned to parental care.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Threshold Criteria, Burden of Proof, Expert Medical Evidence, Rehabilitation of Children
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Threshold Criteria Burden of Proof Expert Medical Evidence Rehabilitation of Children

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Mother

F

Father

Local Authority

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (public Law) / Fact Finding Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether injuries sustained by B were non-accidental
  2. 2 Whether threshold criteria for significant harm under the Children Act 1989 are met
  3. 3 Whether the injuries were caused by reckless or intentional conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that B's injuries were not birth-related, not caused by an underlying medical condition, and not explained by any plausible accidental history. The most likely cause was reckless handling by a parent, exceeding normal intensity but not grossly excessive or intentional. The threshold for significant harm under the Children Act 1989 was met, but the injuries were not deliberately inflicted. The local authority's amended findings were accepted.

Court Disposition

Findings made as sought by the local authority; threshold criteria met; children to be returned to parental care.

Orders

  • Findings of fact as per amended schedule: B suffered subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhages not explained by accident or medical cause, most likely due to reckless handling by a parent.
  • Injuries not deliberately inflicted; threshold for significant harm met under Children Act 1989.