We represented a client in a complex public law proceedings involving serious allegations of non-accidental injury to a very young child. They instructed Jonathan Sampson KC and Margaret Styles of Harcourt Chambers.

Background

The case concerned two young children who had been removed from the care of their parents following medical evidence of multiple fractures sustained by one child over a short period of time. The Local Authority issued care proceedings, and the matter proceeded to a fully contested fact-finding hearing, with expert medical evidence from both pediatric and radiological specialists, as well as a clinical genetics expert.

The central issue for the Court was the cause of the injuries and whether they were inflicted deliberately, recklessly, or could be explained by an underlying medical condition.

Our Client's Position

Our Client consistently maintained that they had not deliberately harmed their child. While they accepted that the handling of their child may at times have been inappropriate, it was their case that any such actions were not intentional and occurred without any awareness that harm would be caused.

This case required careful navigation of highly technical medical evidence, including the exclusion of rare genetic and bone fragility conditions, alongside detailed factual evidence about the day-to-day care of the child.

The Hearing

The Court heard extensive oral evidence from:

• Multiple expert witnesses

• Family members

• Nursery staff

• Both parents

The medical evidence was particularly complex, with the experts ultimately agreeing that the injuries could not be explained by an underlying medical condition and that a level of force beyond ordinary handling would have been required.

A key issue for determination was therefore not only causation, but the nature and intent behind any actions.

The Outcome

The Court made the following critical findings:

• Our client caused the injuries, HOWEVER:

  • The injuries were the result of inappropriate and excessive handling, not deliberate harm

  • There was no intention on his part to injure the child

These findings represented a significant distinction in a case of this nature. The Court rejected any suggestion of deliberate abuse and accepted that the harm occurred in the context of poor handling rather than intentional infliction.

Positive Next Steps for the Family

Importantly, the findings enabled the Court and the Local Authority to move forward constructively in planning for the children's care.

Following the hearing:

• The children were returned to the care of one of the parents under an agreed interim safety plan

• The wider family was engaged to provide additional support

• Our client's contact with the children was increased, recognising the importance of maintaining his relationship with them

• Further assessments were directed to support long-term planning

Why this matters

Cases involving alleged non-accidental injury are among the most serious heard in the Family Court. Findings of deliberate harm can have lifelong consequences for parents and children alike.

In this case, through careful preparation, detailed analysis of expert evidence, and robust advocacy, we were able to secure findings which accurately reflected our clients position:

• Acknowledging shortcomings in care

• While avoiding a finding of international harm

This outcome has allowed the family to begin rebuilding and has ensured that decisions about the children's future are based on a balanced and evidence-based understanding of what occurred.

Our Approach

This case highlights the importance of:

• Early and thorough engagement with expert evidence

• Clear presentation of a client's position

• Sensitive handling of complex family dynamics

• A focus on achieving practical, positive outcomes for children

Our client was represented by Max Konarek, Partner and Joint Head of the Family & Childcare Department, assisted by Alison Barar.