Lancashire County Council v R (A Minor) and others: FD 4 Dec 2008

The local authority sought a care order, alleging serious physical abuse of the child. The mother said that any injuries had been inflicted by the father. The father said that the cause was the mother.
Held: The injuries were not likely to have been accidental. The court concluded that the likely perpetrator was the father. The threshold for intervention was crossed, and an interim care order made.

Ryder J
[2008] EWHC 2959 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 387, [2009] Fam Law 1131
Children act 1989 31
England and Wales
CitedNorth Yorkshire County Council v SA and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The child was taken to hospital with injuries which the doctors concluded were non-accidental. The identity of the abuser was in doubt.
Held: The court set out to identify the procedures in cases involving suspected non-accidental injuries . .
CitedIn re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL 11-Jun-2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
CitedIn 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 . .
CitedZM v JM; Re M (children) (fact-finding hearing: burden of proof); In re M (a Child) (Non-accidental injury: Burden of proof) CA 19-Nov-2008
When a court considered which of two parents might be responsible for a non-accidental injury to their child, what the court cannot do is decide that one parent is the perpetrator but that the other parent cannot be excluded as the perpetrator. . .
CitedOldham Metropolitan Borough Council v GW and others FD 20-Mar-2007
At the outset of this judgment I must emphasise three very important and essential facts that I find and that are now agreed by all involved:
i) K has never been a victim of non accidental injury
ii) The care of K by his parents is and . .
CitedLancashire 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 . .
CitedA Local Authority v K, D and L FD 8-Mar-2005
The court gave guidance on the approach to expert evidence in children’s cases. Charles J said ”in determining the facts, a court should have regard to the guidance given in R v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720 and R v Middleton [2000] TLR 203. As . .
CitedIn 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 . .
CitedIn re B (A Child) (Non-accidental Injury) CA 24-Apr-2002
Even where all the experts conclude that non-accidental injury is not the only possible cause of injury to a child, the court may conclude looking at the evidence on the whole that that is the cause. . .
CitedRe: CB and JB (care proceedings: guidelines) FD 8-Apr-1998
The court gave guidelines for procedures at preliminary hearings in care cases, and as to psychiatric evidence: ‘(iv) Evidence of propensity or psychiatric or psychological assessment of one of the parties is unlikely to be of any assistance in . .
CitedRegina v Harris, Rockalan, Cherry, Faulder CACD 21-Jul-2005
The court gave guidance in respect of expert evidence given in criminal trials. The court made the following two points with regard to evidence of a subdural hematoma caused non-accidentally. First, a clinically observed coincidence of SDH, retinal . .
CitedIn re LU (A Child); In re LB (A Child) (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof); re U (A Child) (Department for Education and Skills intervening) CA 14-May-2004
In each case, the other parent appealed care orders where she had been found to have injured her children. In each case the sole evidence was the injury to the child’s health and expert medical evidence. The cases were referred following the . .
CitedRe A and D (Non-Accidental Injury: Subdural Haematomas) FD 5-Dec-2001
Butler Sloss P said: ‘the degree of force required to cause subdural haematomas need not be as great as previously believed. It remains however equally clear that the force used must be out of the normal rough and tumble of family life and must be . .
CitedRegina v Lucas (Ruth) CACD 1981
People sometimes tell lies for reasons other than a belief that they are necessary to conceal guilt.
Four conditions were identified which must be satisfied before a defendant’s lie could be seen as supporting the prosecution case:-
(1) . .
CitedRegina v Middleton CACD 12-Apr-2000
Where a defendant was shown to have lied in the course of proceedings it need not always be necessary to give a Lucas direction. In some circumstances the jury could properly be expected not to follow a prohibited line of reasoning without such a . .
CitedRe A (Non-Accidental Injury: Medical Evidence); Re C-F (a child) (retinal haemorrhages: non-accidental injury) FD 12-Jan-2001
The court recognised the need to reflect current medical knowledge in practice on child abuse cases: ‘the frontiers of medical science are constantly being pushed back and that the state of knowledge is increasing all the time. That is why I find . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.278560