The mother JJ’s first baby had died after physical abuse inflicted either by her or the father. In care proceedings for a later child, the judge concluded ‘T-L’s injuries could have been inflicted by either, or both, of them. Singling out a likely perpetrator does not help this couple because it must be debatable as to which is worse, to inflict this injury or to protect the person responsible. On these findings it is very difficult to see how either parent, let alone both together, could be safely entrusted in the future with the care of S.’ The mother later took up with a new partner who brought his own children to the relationship. She then had another child by the first father. Though she had been living with the new partner for three years, the local authority began care proceedings. The couple said that it was wrong to base the threshold conditions required under the Act on historical findings in respect of a different relationship. The court had held that it was wrong. The authority now appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. It was only possible to base a finding of likelihood of substantial hrm on an earlier finding if that earlier finding was itself at least a finding of harm on a balance of probabilities. The possibility of harm on an earlier occasion was not sufficient.
Leave was given to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Judges:
Judge LCJ, Neuberger MR, McFarlane LJ
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 380
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others; Lancashire County Council v A HL 16-Mar-2000
A seven month old child had been injured, but it was not possible to establish whether this had taken place whilst with her parents or with a child minder. The Council brought care proceedings also for the minder’s own child B.
Held: Even . .
Cited – In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing) HL 3-Apr-2003
The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible.
Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – In re J (Children) SC 20-Feb-2013
The mother had been, whilst in a previous relationship, involved in care proceedings after the death from physical abuse of her baby. Whilst being severely critical of her, the court had been unable to identify the author of the child’s death. Now, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452440