This judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of this judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 145 (B)
Claim No: BS24C50328
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BRISTOL
Bristol Civil and Family Court Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street
Bristol
BS1 6GR
Before :
Her Honour Judge Cope
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
|
A Local Authority |
Applicant |
|
|
|
|
- and – |
|
|
|
|
|
Mother |
First Respondent |
|
|
|
|
- and – |
|
|
|
|
|
Father |
Second Respondent |
|
|
|
|
- and – |
|
|
|
|
|
A |
Third Respondent |
|
|
|
|
- and – |
|
|
|
|
|
Ms B |
Intervenor |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Morgan (instructed by A Local Authority) for the applicant
Ms Armstrong (instructed by Battrick Clark Solicitors) for the mother
Ms Zabihi (instructed by Daniel Woodman Solicitors) for the father
Ms Farqhar (instructed by Powells Solicitors) for the child
Mr Hewitt for the intervenor
Hearing dates: 3 - 7, 12 February 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment Approved
This judgment was handed down on 12 February 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail at a hearing and by release to the National Archives
Judge's name: Her Honour Judge Cope
Introduction
Background
i) bruise to the back left of the head;
ii) bruise to the left side of the base of the neck;
iii) bruise to the right side of the neck/shoulder blade;
iv) bruise to the back right of the head;
v) bruise to the back of the left shoulder;
vi) bruise to the right side of the neck within the skin fold;
vii) bruise to the front of the right shoulder blade and lower neck; and
viii) broken blood vessels to the right side of the jaw below the ear and over the front shoulder and left of the neck.
The issues and the parties' positions
- Has the local authority established that all or any of A's injuries were non-accidental?
- If A's injuries are inflicted, has the local authority proved who inflicted the injuries?
- If not, has the local authority proved that there is a real possibility that anyone identifiable inflicted A's injuries?
The legal framework
'The concept of the pool of perpetrators should therefore, as was said in Lancashire, encroach only to the minimum extent necessary upon the general principles underpinning s.31(2). Centrally, it does not alter the general rule on the burden of proof. Where there are a number of people who might have caused the harm, it is for the local authority to show that in relation to each of them there is a real possibility that they did. No one can be placed into the pool unless that has been shown. This is why it is always misleading to refer to "exclusion from the pool": see Re S-B at [43]. Approaching matters in that way risks, as Baroness Hale said, reversing the burden of proof.
To guard against that risk, I would suggest that a change of language may be helpful. 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: Re D [2009] EWCA Civ 472 at para 12. 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".'
'... elaborate analysis of a tweet; it is likewise unwise to parse a Facebook posting for its theoretically or logically deducible meaning. The imperative is to ascertain how a typical (i.e. an ordinary reasonable) reader would interpret the message. That search should reflect the circumstance that this is a casual medium; it is in the nature of conversation rather than carefully chosen expression; and that it is pre-eminently one in which the reader reads and passes on.'
The hearing
Risk and protective factors
A's injuries
Timing
Other causes
The cause of A's injuries and knowledge of others
Ms D
Caring of A
Events leading up to A's hospital admission
Ms B
Observations and analysis
Conclusion
Her Honour Judge Cope
12 February 2025
FINDINGS
1. The child, A, has sustained the following injuries:
i) an incomplete fracture in the shaft of the right radius (forearm);
ii) bruise to the back left of the head;
iii) bruise to the left side of the base of the neck;
iv) bruise to the right side of the neck/shoulder blade;
v) bruise to the back right of the head;
vi) bruise to the back of the left shoulder;
vii) bruise to the right side of the neck within the skin fold;
viii) bruise to the front of the right shoulder blade and lower neck; and
ix) broken blood vessels to the right side of the jaw below the ear and over the front shoulder and left of the neck.
A has sustained all of the above injuries.
2. The above injuries were caused on one more than one event between 24 June 2024 and 8 July 2024.
The allegation is made out.
3. The above injuries were caused by excessive and significant applications of force, likely to be gripping by a carers hand, which would fall well outside of what is considered reasonable handling of a child of A's age.
The allegation is made out.
4. The above injuries were deliberately inflicted by the mother, the father or a combination of them.
The allegation is made out.
5. Whoever inflicted the injuries on A would have known that they had hurt her and they have not given an honest or plausible account which has led to A having to undergo unnecessary medical investigations and examinations. Neither parent has given an honest account prior to the issue of these proceedings nor during the proceedings themselves.
The allegation is made out.
6. The parents have failed to protect A from the harmful handling by a third party on 22 June 2024.
The allegation is made out.
7. As a result of the findings above and on the relevant date (9 August 2024) A has suffered significant physical and emotional harm and is at risk of suffering further such significant harm as a result of the parenting she has received with such parenting not being reasonable or acceptable to expect for a parent to give to a child.
The allegation is made out.