R (a child) [2019] EWFC B91 (09 September 2019)

R (a child) [2019] EWFC B91 (09 September 2019)

The court found that Rosie’s injuries were most likely non-accidental and inflicted while in Sylvie’s sole care. The medical evidence did not support Sylvie’s revised account as a likely explanation for the constellation and severity of injuries. The threshold for care proceedings was met due to the risk of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWFC B91
Parties
Applicant: Local Authority X; First Respondent (mother): Sylvie; Second Respondent (child, Through Children’s Guardian): Rosie (a child); Third Respondent (mother’s Partner): Claire
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings Under Children Act 1989 S.31(2) / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Threshold for care proceedings met; findings made against Sylvie as perpetrator of non-accidental injury; Claire excluded from pool of perpetrators; orders for continued statutory intervention and supervised contact.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Care Proceedings, Threshold Criteria, Parental Mental Health, Domestic Violence, Standard of Proof, Fact Finding, Child Welfare
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Care Proceedings Threshold Criteria Parental Mental Health Domestic Violence Standard of Proof +2 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Local Authority X

Applicant

Sylvie

First Respondent (mother)

Rosie (a child)

Second Respondent (child, Through Children’s Guardian)

Claire

Third Respondent (mother’s Partner)

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings Under Children Act 1989 S.31(2) / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rosie suffered non-accidental injuries and by whom
  2. 2 Whether Rosie has suffered or is likely to suffer emotional harm and neglect in the care of Sylvie and Claire
  3. 3 Whether Sylvie and/or Claire pose a risk to Rosie

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Rosie’s injuries were most likely non-accidental and inflicted while in Sylvie’s sole care. The medical evidence did not support Sylvie’s revised account as a likely explanation for the constellation and severity of injuries. The threshold for care proceedings was met due to the risk of significant harm, emotional harm, and neglect, compounded by the mothers’ mental health issues and lack of candour with professionals.

Court Disposition

Threshold for care proceedings met; findings made against Sylvie as perpetrator of non-accidental injury; Claire excluded from pool of perpetrators; orders for continued statutory intervention and supervised contact.

Orders

  • Rosie to remain subject to interim care order
  • Supervised contact for both mothers