S (A Child: Adequacy of Reasoning), Re

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns care proceedings involving a three-year-old child, referred to as S, who was found with a broken arm, a mark on his neck, and a bruise to his clavicle after arriving at nursery. The injuries were sustained no earlier than the afternoon of the preceding day, during which S was in the care of his mother and her boyfriend, Mr C. The local authority initiated proceedings based on concerns about the injuries and the mother's fluctuating mental health. The mother was living independently with S and had recently begun a relationship with Mr C. The child was placed with his maternal grandparents subject to an interim supervision order, with supervised contact with the mother.

The fact-finding hearing was conducted over three days by Her Honour Judge Mellanby in May 2019, during which ten witnesses were heard, including expert medical evidence. The hearing involved represented parties and an unrepresented intervenor, Mr C. Due to court scheduling constraints, the judge delivered an oral judgment late on the final day, which was lengthy but left the parties unclear on key findings. Clarification was sought, but the judgment was found to contain inconsistencies and insufficient reasoning, resulting in the appeal and an order for a rehearing before a different judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the local authority had proved that the injuries to S were inflicted rather than accidental.
2. If the injuries were inflicted, who had the opportunity to cause them.
3. Whether a specific perpetrator could be identified on the balance of probabilities.
4. If the perpetrator could not be identified but only two persons had the opportunity, whether an 'uncertain perpetrator' finding applied.
5. Whether the mother had failed to protect S from injury or concealed knowledge about how the injuries were caused.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judgment was internally inconsistent and chaotic.
• The judge's findings that Mr C was dishonest and hiding knowledge could not coexist with the finding that the mother may have caused the injuries.
• The judgment was perverse, as it failed to properly weigh compelling evidence pointing to Mr C as the likely perpetrator.
• Evidence included multiple statements from S expressing fear of Mr C and identifying him as the person who caused the injury.
• The judge ignored or discounted critical evidence without adequate explanation.
• Mr C had a major opportunity to inflict injury due to inappropriate delegation of care by the mother.
• The judge was critical of Mr C's demeanour and found contradictions in his evidence.

Respondents' Arguments

• The local authority and Guardian disputed the claim of perversity.
• They contended the judge’s conclusion that the injury was non-accidental could be inferred from the medical evidence, opportunity, absence of accident explanation, and lies by both carers.
• They acknowledged inconsistencies in the judgment, particularly regarding the mother's knowledge and responsibility.
• They noted the difficulty arising from Mr C's lack of legal representation at trial, which disadvantaged him and complicated proceedings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re N-S (Children) [2017] EWCA Civ 1121	Requirement for judges to provide adequate reasoning and explanation in child-related cases.	The court cited this precedent to emphasize the necessity of clear, well-reasoned judgments to aid parties, professionals, and appellate review, highlighting that insufficient reasoning impedes appellate consideration.
B (Children : Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575	The proper staged approach to findings in cases involving uncertain perpetrators.	The court noted that the trial judge was not referred to this guidance, which confirms the correct sequential approach to determining perpetrator responsibility in such cases.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the difficult working conditions for family court judges, including pressure to deliver extempore judgments. However, it found that the trial judge’s oral judgment was insufficiently clear and inadequately reasoned, leaving parties uncertain about the outcome on critical issues. The judge failed to apply the proper staged approach to the case, which involves first determining whether the injuries were inflicted, then identifying the perpetrator or concluding uncertainty if appropriate, and finally assessing parental responsibility for protection or concealment.

The court identified numerous inconsistencies and contradictory findings within the judgment, notably the incompatible conclusions regarding the mother’s and Mr C’s knowledge and responsibility. The judge’s language was imprecise, vacillating between certainty and doubt about key facts, which undermined confidence in the findings. The court emphasized that a judgment must clearly analyze and weigh evidence pointing towards and away from each potential perpetrator rather than merely asserting conclusions.

The court further noted procedural difficulties caused by Mr C’s self-representation and poor quality of the court recording, which complicated the transcription and review process. The absence of clear threshold findings in the order and reliance on a trial preparation document (Scott schedule) rather than a definitive statement of grounds was also criticized.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the deficiencies in reasoning and clarity were so significant that it could not uphold the judgment and that a rehearing before a different judge was necessary.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and ordered a rehearing before a different judge. It declined to substitute its own findings because the appeal did not yield a single realistic outcome. The matter was remitted to the Designated Family Judge for urgent case management to facilitate a final decision on the child’s future, including consideration of medical evidence, hearing structure, and legal representation for Mr C.

The direct effect is that the original judgment is set aside and the case will be reheard. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision underscores the critical importance of clear, reasoned judgments in family law cases, particularly where serious allegations of child injury and parental responsibility are concerned.