Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns a child ("A") born in 2009 who has suffered from a severe neurodevelopmental and neuromuscular disorder with complex care needs, never satisfactorily diagnosed. The child’s care has primarily been provided by the parents with support from extended family and medical professionals. In January 2010, a scan revealed multiple rib fractures and bilateral acromial fractures. No explanation was given for these injuries, leading to care proceedings initiated by the local authority on the suspicion that the injuries were inflicted. The child remained with the parents under supervision, which was gradually reduced over time.
Medical evidence, including a joint report from a distinguished paediatrician ("Professor David"), concluded that the fractures were likely caused by squeezing of the chest, possibly by either the parents or hospital staff, as the child was sometimes an inpatient during the relevant period. The child was described as "massively irritable and hugely difficult to handle," requiring forceful handling for feeding and care, which could mask signs of injury from anyone other than the actual perpetrator.
Despite the injuries, the parents' commitment and quality of care were acknowledged as admirable. The local authority, recognizing the lack of alternative viable care options and the reduction in supervision needs, applied to withdraw the care proceedings. The court granted permission for withdrawal on 21 December 2010, reserving reasons to be delivered in open court, balancing public interest with confidentiality protections for the child and family.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the local authority could prove the threshold criteria under Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 to justify a care order based on the injuries sustained by the child.
- Whether the injuries could be attributed to the parents or other carers, including hospital staff, and the implications of such attribution.
- The appropriate legal basis for withdrawing care proceedings when the threshold criteria might be met but welfare considerations suggest no order is necessary under Section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989.
- The applicability of the principles established in LANCASHIRE C.C. -V- B and RE B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) to cases where it is not possible to identify the specific perpetrator of harm.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The local authority argued that, although it could not prove which parent inflicted the injuries, the threshold for harm under Section 31(2) could still be met based on the injuries occurring while the child was in their care.
- They relied on the principle from LANCASHIRE C.C. -V- B that the court could make findings of harm attributable to care even if the specific perpetrator among several carers could not be identified.
- The local authority supported withdrawal of proceedings on welfare grounds, acknowledging the parents' ability and commitment to care for the child.
Appellee's Arguments
- Counsel for the parents submitted that the court should expressly exonerate the parents from responsibility for the injuries, as there was no proof they caused them.
- They emphasized that absent proof of infliction, the case should be managed on the basis that the parents did not cause the injuries, consistent with the standard of proof in RE B.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| L.B. Southwark -v- Y [1993] 2 FLR 559 |
Use of Section 1(5) Children Act 1989 to conclude no order is necessary despite threshold being met. |
Referenced as authority for welfare-based withdrawal of care proceedings. |
| WSCC -v- M, F and Others [2010] EWHC 1914 (Fam) |
Application of welfare considerations under Section 1(5) Children Act 1989. |
Supported the court’s approach to withdraw proceedings on welfare grounds. |
| RE B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] 2 FLR 141 |
Standard of proof in care proceedings and managing cases where parents are not proved to have inflicted harm. |
Guided the court to manage the case on the basis that parents did not cause injuries absent proof. |
| Lancashire C.C. -v- B [2000] 1 FLR 583 |
Threshold criteria can be satisfied even if it is not possible to identify which carer inflicted the injury. |
Applied to acknowledge that harm was attributable to care provided by parents or carers despite lack of specific proof. |
| RE S-B (Children) [2010] 1 FLR 1161 |
Consideration of attributability focusing on care rather than on parents specifically. |
Court found no alteration to approach from Lancashire case; attributability to care remains central. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by recognizing the undisputed fact that the child suffered significant harm in the form of multiple fractures. The medical evidence indicated no underlying bone weakness and no plausible explanation other than inflicted injury through squeezing of the chest. However, the possibility that hospital staff may have caused the injuries introduced uncertainty as to the specific perpetrator.
The court acknowledged the difficulty in proving which carer caused the injuries but relied on the principle from Lancashire C.C. -v- B that the threshold for making a care order can be satisfied even if it is only a possibility that the parents caused the harm. The court emphasized that the threshold concerns harm attributable to the care given, not necessarily specific parental fault.
Despite this, the local authority conceded it could not prove that the parents inflicted the injuries. The court therefore applied the standard of proof from RE B, managing the case on the basis that the parents did not cause the injuries. The parents’ commitment and quality of care were affirmed, and the court noted the absence of any findings of deliberate harm.
The court concluded that if the matter had proceeded to trial, it was highly probable the threshold for harm would have been established. Nevertheless, the welfare of the child required consideration under Section 1(5) of the Children Act 1989, which allows the court to make no order if that is consistent with the child's welfare. The local authority and guardian supported the child remaining with the parents, who continued to cooperate with medical and social care professionals.
Balancing these factors, the court found that withdrawal of the care proceedings was appropriate and in the child’s best interests, avoiding unnecessary state intervention while maintaining professional oversight.
Holding and Implications
The court granted permission to withdraw the care proceedings initiated by the local authority.
This decision means the child will remain in the care of the parents without compulsory court supervision, while continuing to receive professional medical and social oversight. The court expressly recognized that no finding was made that the parents inflicted harm and that the case should be managed on the basis that they did not. The ruling does not establish new precedent but applies established principles regarding threshold criteria and welfare considerations in care proceedings.