New Reported Case: Re L (2024) EWFC471 (B)

We represented two children, through their Children’s Guardian, in complex care proceedings arising from serious injuries sustained by the younger child. The injuries included fractures to both wrists, the right ankle and several fingers, as well as bruising. The proceedings required detailed medical assessment and careful consideration of the pool of possible perpetrators, which included both parents and the childminder, who was granted Intervenor status.

Expert evidence and medical assessment

Given the nature and extent of the injuries, the court directed expert evidence from several specialists. These included a Consultant Paediatric Radiologist, a Consultant Paediatric Neurologist, a Consultant in Clinical Genetics due to the child’s pre-existing health issues, and a Consultant Paediatrician. Treating clinicians also provided evidence following the child’s hospital admission.

The pattern of fractures and bruising could not be explained by any likely accidental cause leading medical professionals taking the view these had been inflicted upon the child.

Court’s findings

After a lengthy fact-finding hearing, the court found that the injuries were non-accidental and were sustained while the child was in the care of the childminder. In reaching this conclusion, the court found that a number of the bruises were caused by rough handling and gripping, while others were caused by likely impacts. The child’s chipped tooth was also likely due to an impact. The fractures were similarly deemed to be non-accidental, and the judge made findings the childminder had likely caused the injuries.

The judge concluded the local authority had not been able to prove either parent was a likely perpetrator. The court also considered whether the evidence supported a finding of deliberately inflicted injury. Although the childminder had shown hostility towards the child after an evaluation of her text messages to a friend, and had not provided a truthful explanation of events whilst the child was in her care, the court found the evidence before the court fell short of establishing intentional infliction. The court found the injuries were non-accidental in nature, occurring in the Intervener’s care as a result of “an element of wrong” in the care she provided to the child.

The parents were therefore excluded from the pool of perpetrators and findings were made against the child minder.

Withdrawal of proceedings

Following the court’s findings, the local authority sought to withdraw its application. The court agreed, and the case was dismissed. This brought to an end a lengthy and emotionally challenging process for the family, who had remained caring for the children with substantive support and monitoring throughout the proceedings.

Our clients were represented by Head of our Hammersmith Family team, Charlotte Burns, with Aiden Vine KC and Frances Harris of Harcourt Chambers instructed as counsel.

Read the reported judgement here.