Northampton NN1 3HQ |
||
B e f o r e :
PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
____________________
A LOCAL AUTHORITY |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) S (2) B (3) C (4)&(5) D & R (Through their Children's Guardian) |
Respondents |
____________________
Unit 1 Blenheim Court, Beaufort Business Park, Bristol, BS32 4NE
Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR S YEUNG (instructed by AGR Law) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent
MRS J PAGE (instructed by PS Law Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent
MS R WATKINS (instructed by Wilson Browne Sole) appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent
MR A DUNCAN (instructed by HLA Family Law) appeared on behalf of the Fourth and Fifth Respondent Children, through their Children's Guardian
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
SIR ANDREW McFARLANE P:
Background
This hearing
Significant harm
A. Physical injury to R
B. Slapping both children on the face
C. Assault on D at Y's home
Neglect
Emotional harm
"Those are my findings. In general, they illustrate a relationship characterised by frequent and loud verbal arguments. Those arguments, so far as the father's behaviour is concerned would, on occasion, escalate quickly into volatile, aggressive, and occasionally violent behaviour and that the father's behaviour on occasion extended to trying to prevent the mother seeking help or assistance, in part by efforts to remove her phone, an action replicated with his previous partner."
Failure to protect
Expert evidence
"Vertebral fractures due to child abuse are compression fractures of the vertebral bodies … These result from extreme flexion or extension, in particular at the lower thoracic and higher lumbar level, for example, direct impact violence, such as a blow or a kick or from alternating hyperflexion and hyperextension during shaking."
"I think the nature of the hip injury and the injury to the backbone, is such that the person or people who caused those injuries will be in no doubt as to what exactly happened and when."
The legal context
"The court should first consider whether there is a 'list' of people who had the opportunity to cause the injury. It should then consider whether it can identify the actual perpetrator on the balance of probability and should seek, but not strain, to do so … Only if it cannot identify the perpetrator to the civil standard of proof should it go on to ask in respect of those on the list: 'Is there a likelihood or real possibility that A or B or C was the perpetrator or a perpetrator of the inflicted injuries?' Only if there is should A or B or C be placed into the 'pool'."
"… in future cases judges should no longer direct themselves on the necessity of avoiding 'straining to identify a perpetrator'. The unvarnished test is clear: following a consideration of all the available evidence and applying the simple balance of probabilities, a judge either can, or cannot, identify a perpetrator. If he or she cannot do so, then, in accordance with Re B [2019], he or she should consider whether there is a real possibility that each individual on the list inflicted the injury in question."
The position of the parties
(a) that the 20 recorded bruises to R's scalp and thigh seen on 23 January were inflicted by C.
(b) That the four occasions recorded in text messages in October, November, January and February where the mother states that she has hit or slapped D, are occasions when she did indeed hit or slap him causing injury. For example, that seen in the photograph of 18 November three days after her text of 15 November.
(c) that the adult responsible for hitting D around the face when the family were staying over at Y's house on 25 November was C.
In relation to all of the fractures seen in R and each of the other unexplained injuries, the local authority case is that it is not possible for the court to find that the perpetrator was one or the other of the only two people with the opportunity to cause the injuries, namely the mother and C. The authority, however, do submit that the evidence establishes that there is a likelihood, a real possibility that both the mother and C inflicted these injuries or that one or other did it and that there should, accordingly, be a finding that they are both in the pool of perpetrators with respect to the fractures and the other unexplained traumatic injuries.
The mother's changing accounts
"C is barely at home and I cannot remember an occasion when I have left him with the children alone, except we are not in the same room at all times."
"What other explanation can I give except to say what I believe or saw."
Mother's evidence
Y's evidence
C's evidence
Findings