Cumbria County Council v M & Ors
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PETER JACKSON
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Civil Procedure
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case entails the tragic death of K, the younger brother of child A, who subsequently entered foster care after her parents were arrested for K's suspected murder. The court evaluated whether K's injuries were inflicted and identified the father as responsible for the injuries and K's death. Delays and shortcomings in the actions by statutory authorities were noted. It was concluded that A should live with her mother without direct contact with her father, addressing resultant legal and welfare implications.
JUDGMENT
Mr Justice Peter Jackson:
Introduction
This case concerns A, who is 4 years 9 months old. She has been in foster care since September 2013, having been removed from her parents when they were arrested on suspicion of having murdered her younger brother, K, two years earlier.
K was 6 weeks old when he died suddenly and unexpectedly in the care of his parents on 11 July 2011. He was a premature baby who had remained in hospital for the first month of his life. He died after being at home for just thirteen days. At post-mortem he was discovered to have brain injuries and a fractured skull.
A was then aged 22 months. She was removed from her parents and placed with an aunt for three weeks before being returned home. There she remained for the next two years before being removed again in September 2013, as described above. At that point the Family Court became involved for the first time.
I will describe and comment on the investigations into K’s death below. For the moment it is enough to note that although fully 3 years have passed since K died, the Coroner’s inquest into his death has not been completed. Even now, the parents remain on bail and the Crown Prosecution Service has not reached a decision about whether either of them should face criminal charges, nor is there any sign of when it will do so.
The issues at this hearing are:
Were K’s injuries inflicted, as opposed to being due to natural causes?
If they were inflicted, were the parents responsible?
If so, is it possible to identify which parent was responsible?
What decision should now be made about A’s future?
The Law
I adopt and apply the principles summarised by Mr Justice Baker in A Local Authority v (1) A Mother (2) A Father (3) L & M (Children, by their Children’s Guardian) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam) :
First, the burden of proof lies at all times with the local authority.
Secondly, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Third, findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation …
Fourthly, when considering cases of suspected child abuse, the court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. The court invariably surveys a wide canvas. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an o