Lancashire County Council v B

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns care proceedings involving an infant, referred to as R, who sustained a fracture to his right ankle at 14 weeks old. His parents, referred to as the mother and the father, were arrested on suspicion of causing the injury, and R was placed in foster care. The hearing before the court is a fact-finding and welfare hearing to determine the circumstances of R's injury and the appropriate orders for his future care. The parents deny causing the injury, and the local authority bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

The parents met several years before R’s birth and lived together with R in a small three-bedroom home. R was described as a healthy and normally developing baby. The parents both participated in his care. The injury was identified in December 2013, and proceedings began shortly thereafter. An incident between the parents occurred in April 2014, resulting in an assault charge against the father, who was later acquitted. The parents have since resumed their relationship and appeared as a couple at the hearing.

Medical evidence established that R’s fracture was caused by a severe twisting force, inconsistent with normal handling or accidental injury. The injury likely occurred between late afternoon and early morning on 18-19 December 2013. Both parents were aware that R was in pain following the injury. Despite this, the parents have offered no credible explanation and have been found to be untruthful witnesses who colluded to conceal the truth.

The court heard detailed evidence from both parents over two days and considered expert medical testimony regarding the nature and timing of the injury. The parents’ credibility was assessed negatively due to inconsistencies, falsehoods, and attempts to deflect blame.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether one or other parent inflicted the fracture on R.
2. Whether the court can identify the perpetrator responsible for the injury.
3. What orders should be made for R’s future care following the findings.
4. The assessment of the parents’ credibility and the impact on the court’s findings.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the principle that the local authority bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities and must consider all relevant evidence, including the credibility of witnesses. The court carefully evaluated the medical evidence, which was unchallenged and established that the fracture was caused by a deliberate twisting force unlikely to be accidental.

The court noted that if the perpetrator could not be identified with certainty, it would conclude the injury was caused by one of the parents. The parents’ evidence was found to be unreliable and untruthful, with both attempting to conceal the truth through collusion. The court declined to speculate on which parent inflicted the injury but emphasized that both were responsible for the consequences of their joint failure to be truthful.

The court also accepted the mother’s account of the assault by the father in April 2014, noting the parents’ prior collusion in that matter as indicative of their approach to the current proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The court made a care order placing R permanently with his maternal grandparents, who have been favourably assessed. The parents’ contact with R will be reduced gradually to once a month, initially professionally supervised, with details to be agreed by the parties and grandparents. A care plan reflecting these arrangements is to be filed within two weeks.

The parents did not seek further assessments of their capacity to care for R, and the court indicated it would have refused such applications. The court emphasized the need for a clear and stable plan for R’s future, entrusting his long-term care to the grandparents. This arrangement may eventually lead to an application for a special guardianship order, barring any unforeseeable fundamental changes in circumstances.