Lancashire CC v C, M & F (Children: Fact-finding)
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PETER JACKSON
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Judge Peter Jackson oversaw care proceedings for two young girls, K and S, following the death of their sister L. Lancashire County Council initiated the process after earlier proceedings concerning K's 2011 skull fracture were withdrawn. The court reviewed extensive medical evidence and witness testimonies over an eight-day hearing. It found no evidence that the parents caused K's head injury or knew how it happened, nor did it find evidence that L's death resulted from unsafe sleeping arrangements by the parents. The case highlighted principles related to the burden and standard of proof, holistic evidence assessment, the role of expert evidence, and the credibility of testimonies.
JUDGMENT
Mr Justice Peter Jackson:
Introduction
These care proceedings concern two young children, both girls. They are K, born in March 2011, who is 3 years old, and S, born in May 2013, who is aged just 1. Lancashire County Council issued the proceedings in September 2013 following the sudden death of S’s identical twin sister L on 11 September 2013 at the age of 16 weeks. Since then, K and S have been in foster care with a very high level of parental contact.
This is the second time proceedings have been issued in relation to K. On 14 November 2011, when she was aged 8 months, her mother took her to hospital with a swollen head; this was investigated and it was found that she had a fractured skull. Proceedings were taken but in September 2012 they were withdrawn with the court’s approval and K, who had been in foster care for 10 months, went home. The present Children’s Guardian acted for K in those proceedings and the current social work team manager was also involved.
In the original proceedings, the mother gave an account of K having fallen down some stairs at home 12 days before she was taken to hospital. A paediatrician accepted that this might explain the skull fracture and swelling and it was in that context that the proceedings were withdrawn. In these proceedings, that explanation has been discounted by the medical experts, and no party now suggests that such an incident could realistically have been responsible for K’s injury.
This hearing has therefore been an investigation into the injury to K and the death of L. The written evidence is spread across a dozen files and oral evidence was given over the course of eight days. In addition to conventional written submissions, counsel have created several agreed documents. These include summaries of the medical evidence, of the sequence of events from the moment the parents sought medical attention for each child, and of the statements made by the parents to others. These helpful documents were possible because of planned breaks in the evidence when the court could not sit for other reasons. This has saved court time and clarified the issues. In this instance, the effect of the medical evidence was agreed before the parents gave their evidence.
The local authority's case at the outset of the hearing was that the parents were responsible for ill-treatment of K and L either by way of inflicting injury upon them or from accidents that were concealed or arose from a lack of care. Having tested t