Background
Beth, a child aged approximately 15 months, suffered a spiral fracture of her left femur (thigh bone), bruising under her right eye, and bruising on the outside of her right knee on 2 April 2025. Her mother was in a relationship with the Intervenor (the mother’s partner). The Intervenor’s mother, IM, had a partner called IMP. On the date of the injuries, Beth was in the sole care of the Intervenor while the mother and IM left the home for approximately one hour. Later that evening, the mother took Beth to an out-of-hours walk-in centre due to concern about an infected toe, where a purplish discolouration under Beth’s right eye was noted, prompting a safeguarding referral. Beth was admitted to hospital overnight, where the injuries were confirmed, including multiple bruises to her back, legs, and ribs. X-rays revealed the femoral fracture with angulation and shortening, surrounded by haematoma. Beth underwent surgery at Southampton General Hospital and was discharged with a cast that was removed on 8 May 2025; the fracture healed without requiring physiotherapy.
The Local Authority brought proceedings seeking to establish that Beth had suffered significant harm and met the threshold for a care order under section 31(2) Children Act 1989. The case proceeded to fact-finding. The Local Authority initially alleged that the Intervenor’s mother’s partner (IMP) could have caused the injuries but subsequently withdrew that allegation. The key issue became whether the court could identify who caused the injuries and whether the mother had failed to protect Beth.
The Court’s Holding
His Honour Judge Richard Case found that the injuries were non-accidental and could not have been caused by everyday handling or accident. The court held that none of the injuries could have resulted from falls or other accidental means. Medical evidence established that the fractured femur would have caused significant pain and the mechanism of injury would have been evident to anyone present. The court found on the balance of probabilities that the Intervenor caused the left femoral fracture, the injury causing bruising under the right eye, and the injury causing bruising on the outside of the right knee while Beth was in his sole care between approximately 17:30 and 18:30 on 2 April 2025. The Intervenor was found to have been dishonest about the injuries.
Although the court did not find that the mother caused the injuries, it found that the mother failed to protect Beth. The mother allowed Beth to remain in the same home as IMP (the Intervenor’s mother’s partner), whom she knew presented a risk to Beth through his use of cannabis and with whom she would not have been comfortable being left alone. Furthermore, the mother continued her relationship with the Intervenor even after becoming aware he may have caused injury to Beth, and she was untruthful to the police in denying contact with him over summer 2025. The court found that these matters met the threshold for intervention under section 31(2) Children Act 1989, as the harm suffered (or likely to be suffered) was attributable to care not being what a reasonable parent would provide.
Key Takeaways
- Non-accidental injury findings do not require identification of the perpetrator; a court can meet the threshold by finding that injuries could not have been accidental and the child was in the care of identifiable individuals.
- A parent’s failure to protect a child from a known risk—even when the parent did not inflict the injury—can meet the threshold for intervention, particularly where the parent knows an individual presents a risk and continues to expose the child to that risk.
- Dishonesty by a parent or carer, including failure to disclose relevant information to professionals and police, supports findings of non-accidental injury and failure to protect, though lying about one matter does not establish lying about everything.
- Medical evidence of the mechanism of injury and the physical characteristics of injuries (such as the type of fracture, location of bruising, and pain caused) is critical in distinguishing accidental from non-accidental harm in young children.
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces principles in child protection law concerning how courts assess non-accidental injury in very young children who cannot articulate what happened to them. It demonstrates that the court’s focus is not on identifying blame or intent but on whether the child has suffered significant harm and whether the standard of care falls below what a reasonable parent would provide. The decision is instructive on the threshold for intervention where a mother, although not the direct perpetrator, enables harm by maintaining a relationship with someone she knows poses a risk to the child.
The case also illustrates the importance of credibility assessment in family proceedings. The court gave careful consideration to the lies and partial disclosures made by both the mother and the Intervenor, applying the Lucas direction to determine that dishonesty supported (but did not itself prove) the local authority’s case. For practitioners, the judgment provides detailed guidance on fact-finding methodology in child injury cases, the role of expert evidence, and how to apply the threshold test under the Children Act 1989 where the perpetrator’s identity cannot be established with certainty.