Our Family Law team recently represented a mother in a care proceedings case where the Local Authority alleged that her son (the child) had sustained non-accidental injuries.
Derbyshire County Council v AA & Ors
Case summary
This case concerned a child, aged 18 months at the time that the judgement was handed down, who resided with his mothers, maternal grandmother, and other family members during the course of the proceedings.
In July 2021, the child attended hospital for a routine consultation in relation to a tongue tie. At the consultation, the parents raised concerns about the child’s presentation the night before the appointment and asked the consultant if the child could be seen at the A&E department. A chest x-ray was then taken by the A&E department.
The day after, the parents were asked to take the child to A&E and duly did so. The x-ray revealed that the child had fractures to his ribs on the left side of the 6th, 7th, and 8th rib posteriorly. Subsequently, a Child Protection Medical was completed on the same day, and a skeletal survey, blood tests, CT scan, and an ophthalmological review were then completed the next day.
A Consultant Paediatrician also reviewed the child and concluded that the rib fractures were more likely to be non-accidental than accidental.
Gareth Protheroe (Legal Director) and Jade Russell (Paralegal) from our Family Law team were instructed by the biological mother of the child and, along with the mother’s legal representation, made an application for the case to be dismissed based upon the proceedings not being necessary to protect the child and that to proceed to a fact-finding hearing didn’t meet the tests in case law.
LA applications and Court proceedings
On 2 August 2021, care proceedings were issued by the Local Authority (LA) and an Interim Care Order (ICO) application came before the Family Courts on 4 August 2021. The LA’s threshold alleged that the child sustained a non-accidental injury by one or both parents. The LA also claimed that the parents hadn’t been honest with them regarding this.
The parents fervently disputed these allegations and raised the possibility that the child had been injured at birth or in hospital shortly following his birth. For this reason, the University Hospital of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust joined the proceedings.
The Judge considered that the tests for making public law orders were not made out and therefore no ICO or supervision order was made. It was agreed that the child should be placed under a complex and very full supervision plan, which he was subject to since this time with all of his care being supervised by at least one family member.
Over the course of each month, the child lived with his parents and other family members in Derbyshire for two weeks. The other two weeks of the month were spent in West Sussex with the child’s grandmother and one of the child’s parents. Various family members were approved as supervisors, who supervised at different times. At no point in time, had the child been removed from his parent’s care. Also, no doubts had been raised regarding the quality of care provided by the parents to the child. The parents also fully cooperated with the LA throughout the proceedings. It is also worth noting that neither parent had previously had any involvement with social services before this case.
Numerous medical experts were instructed, and their general view was that the child’s injuries were more likely to be non-accidental injuries than those sustained during birth or shortly afterwards at the hospital. Although, the time window for the fractures included the child’s birth.
The Court listed a pre-trial review prior to a fact-finding hearing taking place in January 2023.
High Court ruling
High Court Judge Mrs Justice Lieven ruled that it was “neither necessary nor proportionate to hold a finding of fact hearing” as “there is no evidence here to support any finding of deliberately inflicted injury”. Further adding that:
“The overwhelming probability is that if the Court did find a non-accidental injury, it would be a single act of significantly inappropriate handling of a very young baby, rather than any deliberate act or any course of conduct.”
The Judge also noted the following:
- The extensive twice-monthly travel must have been stressful for the child which could be detrimental to his health (he had a serious chest infection which led him to be taken to A&E and discharged with antibiotics).
- That the proceedings were placing enormous strain on the child and his family and normal family relations and that this “would be wholly justifiable if the evidence suggested that it was necessary in order to safeguard X [the child]. But it does not appear to me that the evidence is now supportive of that position.”
- That a gradually decreasing supervision/safety plan over the coming months should be put in place so that the LA is satisfied that the child is safe.
- If it cannot be ascertained how the child’s injuries were caused, the “parties can still work together to agree a plan which can form a recital to the order that brings these proceedings to an end. If the parents do not follow that plan it would be open to the Local Authority to bring the matter back to Court through fresh proceedings.”
How we can help
At Nelsons, we have a team of highly skilled experts in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham who can represent you at every stage of proceedings. If you require representation or need any advice regarding your circumstances, please contact Gareth Protheroe (pictured right) or Jade Russell from our team on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
A member of the team will be happy to discuss your circumstances in more detail and give you information about the services that we can provide along with details of our hourly rates and fixed fee services.
Contact us