O (Children: Fact-Finding)

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns care proceedings following severe head injuries sustained by a baby boy, referred to as C, in November 2023 when he was three weeks old. The injuries occurred during an assault by the father on the mother on the night before C's presentation at hospital. The local authority appealed a finding by His Honour Judge North that all injuries were caused on that night, arguing expert medical evidence indicated some injuries occurred during a second, undisclosed event on the day of hospital admission.

The family, part of the travelling community, has five children and a history of domestic abuse by the father against the mother. C was taken to the local hospital twice on 26 November 2023, initially discharged after assessment and then readmitted in critical condition. Both parents initially gave false accounts blaming the children for the injury, maintaining these lies for five months until compelled to change their story. The father pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm to C and awaits sentencing.

Following discovery of incriminating phone messages and the parents' revised account, the local authority commenced proceedings in April 2024, removing the children to foster and extended family care under interim care orders. The mother seeks the children's return.

Three leading medical experts were instructed and provided reports, agreeing that C sustained two impacts to the head and that the diffuse axonal injury (DAI) was highly likely caused after the first hospital presentation, not during the assault the previous night. The local authority sought findings that the injuries were inflicted by one or both parents and that the parents had been dishonest with professionals.

A fact-finding hearing took place over eleven days in January 2025, with extensive evidence considered. The judge found that the local authority had not proved the more serious injuries occurred between hospital visits and that the probable explanation was that all injuries were sustained on the night of 25 November 2023.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the more serious injuries to C, including the diffuse axonal injury and skull fracture, were sustained on the night of 25 November 2023 or during a second undisclosed event between the two hospital admissions on 26 November 2023.
2. If the injuries were sustained in more than one episode, whether the court can identify which parent inflicted them on the balance of probabilities.
3. The appropriate weight to be given to expert medical evidence versus lay evidence in determining the timing and cause of the injuries.
4. The impact of parental dishonesty and history of domestic abuse on credibility assessments and findings of fact.

Arguments of the Parties

Local Authority's Arguments

• The judge failed to give appropriate weight to agreed expert evidence indicating the DAI was caused between hospital visits.
• The judge made unsupported findings that symptoms of DAI were missed during the first hospital admission.
• The judge overestimated the credibility of the parents despite their sustained deceit and dishonesty.
• The judge gave undue weight to the family's low prior involvement with Children's Services, ignoring hidden domestic abuse.
• The judge stretched the evidence beyond reasonable limits, losing sight of the case's realities.

Mother's Arguments

• The judge correctly weighed expert evidence against non-medical evidence, properly exercising judicial function rather than deferring to experts.
• No evidence suggested a second assault between hospital admissions; the parents' accounts were consistent with the assault on 25 November.
• The judge properly cautioned himself regarding parental dishonesty and found corroboration in contemporaneous text messages.
• The judge's conclusions were within the range of reasonable findings based on the totality of evidence.

Father's Arguments

• The judge's factual findings and evidence summary were accurate and should not be disturbed.
• There was a sound evidential basis for concluding that symptoms of DAI were missed during the first hospital admission.
• The judge was uniquely placed to assess the parents' credibility and did not uncritically accept their evidence.
• The judge correctly noted positive aspects of parental care despite the admitted assault.

Children's Guardian's Position

• Supported the local authority's appeal, emphasizing the importance of resolving factual issues correctly for the children's welfare.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the complexity of the case, involving a mass of evidence and the trial judge's advantage in assessing witness demeanour and credibility. The judge had carefully directed himself on the law, including the role of expert evidence and the treatment of lies. He had found the parents' accounts credible enough to conclude all injuries were sustained during the single incident on 25 November 2023, rejecting the local authority's case that the more serious injuries occurred between hospital admissions.

However, the appellate court concluded that the judge's findings could not be reasonably explained or justified. The expert medical evidence, agreed by eminent specialists, strongly indicated that the diffuse axonal injury and skull fracture were caused shortly before the second hospital admission, not on the previous day. The judge's reasons for rejecting this were insufficient and relied on speculative possibilities unsupported by evidence.

The court found the judge erred in attributing significant weight to parental evidence that was inconsistent, deceitful, and contradicted by contemporaneous medical knowledge. The judge also misplaced reliance on the family's social background and prior low involvement with social services as factors diminishing the likelihood of a second injury event.

Overall, the appellate court determined that the expert evidence provided a solid, objective basis that was not displaced by the lay evidence or the judge’s reasoning. The judge’s approach effectively inverted the proper evidential hierarchy by fitting medical evidence to the parents’ narrative rather than critically evaluating the latter against the former.

The court emphasized the importance of resolving the issue correctly for the children's welfare, noting the risk assessment implications of unexplained injuries and parental deceit. It held that the judge’s failure to find a second injury event was not a sustainable conclusion on the evidence.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the court substituted findings that the father assaulted the mother on 25 November 2023 and that a second undisclosed event causing the serious brain injuries occurred between hospital visits.

The court agreed with the parties that a fact-finding rehearing should be conducted urgently, focusing on the period between hospital admissions, without the need for further expert or treating professional evidence.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND REMITTING FOR FURTHER FACT-FINDING

The court held that the trial judge's finding that all injuries were sustained on the night of 25 November 2023 was not reasonably open on the evidence. It substituted findings that the father assaulted the mother on that night and that a second undisclosed event occurred between hospital admissions causing the diffuse axonal injury and possibly other intracranial injuries to C.

The decision requires a rehearing focused on the causation of the intracranial injuries during the interval between hospital visits. This rehearing will proceed on the basis of existing expert evidence, without further expert or treating professional testimony, and will be managed urgently by the Family Presiding Judge.

No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reinforces the appellate court’s role in scrutinizing factual findings critically when expert medical evidence is clear and unchallenged, particularly in sensitive care proceedings involving child welfare and parental credibility.