A Local Authority v M & Ors [2025] EWFC 380 (B)

IMPORTANT NOTICE : This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given permission for this version of the judgment to be published. Such publication may occur only on condition that the anonymity of the child and her family is preserved and that there is omitted any detail or information that may lead to their identification, whether on its own or in conjunction with other material in the judgment. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is complied with. Failure to comply will be a contempt of court[2025] EWFC 380 (B)Case No LU25C50076IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN LUTONIN THE MATTER OF SECTION 31 CHILDREN ACT 1989AND IN THE MATTER OF A (a girl aged 2)Date 5 November 2025
Before
HER HONOUR JUDGE McKINNELL
Between
A Local AuthorityApplicantMRespondentFRespondentA(through her Children’s Guardian)3rd Respondent
Judgment delivered at the Pre-Trial Review on 5 November 2025
Her Honour Judge McKinnell
[1]I am concerned with a 2 year old girl, referred to within this judgment as ‘A’.[2]Her mother (“the Mother”) is represented by Ayesha Hasan, instructed by Reena Vadera of Machins LLP.[3]Her father (“the Father”) is represented by Robert Wilkinson, instructed by Sally Jackson of Noble Solicitors.[4]Her Children’s Guardian is referred to as “the Guardian”. A is represented by Siobhan Kelly, instructed by Emma Taylor of Sweetman, Burke & Sinker Solicitors.[5]The Applicant Local Authority (“the LA”) is represented by Fiona Munro instructed by Mehwish Jabin.[6]The LA has made an application dated 4 November 2025 for permission to withdraw proceedings. The LA says that in the light of medical evidence in this single issue case, the LA will not be able to satisfy the s.31(2) Children Act (“CA”) 1989 threshold criteria for making a care or supervision order.[7]All the other parties support the LA’s application for permission to withdraw proceedings. For reasons which I will set out, I give the LA permission to withdraw these proceedings.[8]In making that decision, I have read and considered the 497 page bundle, the LA’s case summary and skeleton argument, the Mother’s position statement, the Father’s skeleton argument and the Guardian’s position statement. I have also considered the submissions made by the parties at today’s hearing.[9]I have not been asked to hear any evidence and do not consider that I need to. This application has been determined on submissions.[10]A’s welfare remains my paramount consideration. Background[11]The LA’s case summary and skeleton argument sets out a detailed and helpful summary of the relevant background, which I incorporate into this ex tempore judgment.[12]Essentially, on 21 March 2025, the LA received a referral from Luton and Dunstable Hospital raising concerns that A had unexplained fractures. The Mother had taken A to her GP on 13 March 2025 after she noticed that A was limping. X rays revealed a greenstick fracture in A’s distal left tibia. That is a type of fracture commonly seen in younger children where bones are more flexible. The Mother told professionals that A is and was an active child.[13]On 25 March 2025, the hospital confirmed from a skeletal survey a number of other unexplained fractures on A’s left leg, wrists, shoulder and right leg.[14]An MRI scan on 31 March 2025 confirmed another fracture in the upper part of A’s left leg.[15]The parents were unable to explain the fractures.[16]A further older healing fracture was identified in A’s left leg.[17]The multiple fractures in a then 19 month old toddler who had just learned to walk raised serious safeguarding concerns. The medical evidence at the time considered that:
“In the absence of history of trauma, these fractures are highly characteristic of non-accidental injury.”
[18]A moved to the care of her Maternal Aunt. However, on 13 May 2025 A moved to the care of Mr and Mrs C, family friends, where she has remained.[19]A’s parents clearly want A back home with them. They clearly love A and have worked with the LA and professionals in these proceedings well, despite A being separated from them. They have spent time with A regularly but that is not the same as having A living with them and being in their care.[20]Proceedings were issued and court appointed experts have been instructed:a. Consultant Endocrinologist, Professor Sze May Ng;b. Geneticist, Dr Melita Irving;c. Paediatric Radiologist, Dr Karl Johnson;d. Consultant Paediatrician, Dr Ann Kelly.[21]Unusually the paediatric report came in before the report of the geneticist but, having considered the geneticist’s report, the paediatrician’s view remains the same.[22]The reports are summarised in the LA’s case summary and do not support a finding of inflicted injury. Dr Kelly’s clear opinion, having considered the other court appointed experts’ reports, is that more likely than not A experienced an accidental fall from standing and possibly impacting her left knee, which led to her sustaining a fracture of her left distal tibia and a possible fracture to her left transverse proximal tibia. Dr Kelly reports that the fractures will have healed with no long-lasting effects. She describes A as an otherwise healthy child. She considers that A’s parents displayed appropriate behaviour, seeking a medical review once they noticed a change in A’s behaviour and described them as concerned parents who reacted quickly to symptoms and signs which they thought needed to be assessed. She reports that there were no prior concerns about A’s health, safety and wellbeing.[23]Dr Kelly reports that A sustained a clearly identified greenstick fracture of her left distal tibia.Greenstick fractures are more likely to happen in children because their bones are more flexible than those of an adult. She reports that the important point in this case was that only the tibia was fractured. She states that this was what is commonly known as a “toddler fracture”, as it was a non-displaced fracture of the tibia with an intact fibula, in a child aged between 9 months and 3 years. She states that this sort of fracture usually results from a low energy fall, typically in a young child who is toddling or just beginning to walk and observes that A had only been walking for 2 months.[24]Dr Kelly’s report states:
“In my opinion, there has been no parental failure to protect the child. It is evident on reading her primary care records before her presentation on 13/03/2025, A’s parents were very attentive parents who complied with the usual health visitor assessments after birth, attended for immunisations, her 8-month check, etc. entirely appropriately. They sought attention from their GP when they were concerned about A’s symptoms. They also attended out of hours urgent GP services when they remained concerned that she was not getting better in their opinion, when she became unwell at the beginning of March with probable tonsillitis. They were her main carers and apart from a period of just a few hours when mother when unable to care for her prior to her presentation on 13/03/2025, no other adults were involved in her care. They appear to be dedicated to ensuring her safety and wellbeing. It is quite possible to not witness every single event that occurs in their child’s life despite being so dedicated to her care.”
[25]A professionals’ meeting took place on 21 October 2025 before Dr Irving’s report was available. Dr Irving did not attend that meeting. The minutes are agreed. None of the experts’ evidence supports a finding of non-accidental/inflicted injury.[26]Dr Irving’s report was received after Dr Kelly’s report. No genetic disorders were identified by Dr Irving that would require further genetic testing. Dr Irving has confirmed that there is nothing to lead her to believe that A would be more susceptible to fractures than any other child.[27]Dr Kelly has considered Dr Irving’s report and her view remains that A’s fractures were sustained through accidental trauma rather than as a result of an inflicted physical force.[28]Police disclosure of the body worn footage of the parents’ arrest is outstanding but no one says that it should be awaited. Everyone says that it will not affect the expert medical opinion evidence in this case. I agree with that.[29]The Police have applied for disclosure of documents from these proceedings and I dealt with that application dated 29 October 2025 at the start of this hearing because after today these proceedings will come to an end. Today is the last day of these proceedings. The Police’s application for disclosure was agreed by all parties. Whilst I did not have sight of the Police’s position statement dated 4 November 2025 before the case started today (it was uploaded to the portal this morning), I am aware of the relevant authority, Re EC (Disclosure of Material) [1996] 2 FLR 725, and in the light of the parties’ agreement and applying the legal principles set out in that case, I granted the Police’s application for disclosure.[30]Other than A’s fractures, no other concerns have been raised in this case. There is no evidence of conflict in the parents’ relationship. There is no evidence of substance misuse or mental health difficulties. The parents have engaged well with the LA and with other professionals. They have attended all the hearings. They have spent time with A. There is no evidence that A is uncomfortable with her parents. All the other evidence points towards A being a much loved child who was well cared for by her parents. Law[31]There is no dispute about the law. It has been helpfully addressed in the parties’ case summary, skeleton arguments and position statements for today’s hearing.[32]The LA can only withdraw an application for a care order with the permission of the Court: FPR r.29.4(2).[33]The circumstances in which such permission will be granted has been considered in a number of cases.[34]All applications fall into two categories (Redbridge London Borough Council v B and C and A [2011] EWHC 517 (Fam)) as approved in Lancashire County Council v TP and Others (Permission to Withdraw Care Proceedings) (2019). 1. Where the local authority will be unable to satisfy the s.31(2) CA 1989 “threshold criteria” for making a care or supervision order; and 2. Where, on the evidence, it is possible for the local authority to satisfy the threshold criteria.[35]To fall within the first category, the inability to satisfy the criteria must be obvious (Re J, A, M and X (Children) [2014] EWHC 4648 (Fam)). If so, the application must succeed; there can be no successful objection to an application to withdraw care proceedings where the threshold for the making of an order will not be crossed.[36]To fall within the second category, it must be possible on the evidence for the LA to satisfy the threshold criteria. In those circumstances, an application to withdraw the proceedings must be determined by considering(1) whether withdrawal of the care proceedings will promote or conflict with the welfare of the child concerned, and(2) the overriding objective under the Family Procedure Rules. The relevant factors include those identified in A County Council v DP and others [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam) namely:a. the necessity of the investigation and the relevance of the potential result to the future care plans for the child;b. the obligation to deal with cases justly;c. whether the hearing would be proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues;d. the prospects of a fair trial of the issues and the impact of any fact-finding process on other parties;e. the time the investigation would take and the likely cost to public funds.[37]When considering the necessity and proportionality in conducting a fact finding hearing, the Court must consider the factors set out in Oxfordshire County Council v DP, RS and BS [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam) and Re H-D-H (Children),Re C (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192. In the Oxfordshire case, McFarlane J held: [21] If it is lawful for the court to conduct a fact finding exercise despite the fact that at this stage no party is seeking a public law order, it is common ground that the court has a discretion whether, on the individual facts of each case, it is right and necessary to do so. [24] The authorities make it plain that, amongst other factors, the following are likely to be relevant and need to be borne in mind before deciding whether or not to conduct a particular fact finding exercise:a. The interests of the child (which are relevant but not paramount);b. The time that the investigation will take;c. The likely cost to public funds;d. The evidential result;e. The necessity or otherwise of the investigation;f. The relevance of the potential result of the investigation to the future care plans for the child;g. The impact of any fact-finding process upon the other parties;h. The prospects of a fair trial on the issue;i. The justice of the case.”[38]Having seen all the expert medical evidence, the LA submits that this case falls within the first category. The parents and the CG support that submission.[39]Having considered all the written evidence and submissions, I agree that this case falls within the first category. My reasons are: 1. This is a single issue case. 2. There is no expert opinion evidence to support a finding that A’s injuries were inflicted. 3. Dr Johnson, the expert paediatric radiologist, considers that the type of fractures seen in A are not uncommonly seen in active mobile children of A’s age. The parents’ evidence is that A was an active toddler. 4. Dr Kelly, the expert consultant paediatrician, has considered the other experts’ reports and is clear in her opinion that A’s fractures were more likely than not caused by accidental trauma. 5. None of the other court appointed medical experts disagree with Dr Kelly’s opinion. 6. It is for the LA to prove its case. The parents do not have to prove/disprove anything. 7. There is no evidence that the parents caused the fractures. 8. Other than the fractures, there have been no concerns about the parents’ care of A. 9. The parents sought medical treatment on time and when needed. 10. The parents have cooperated throughout these proceedings and have worked well with professionals. 11. The parents have demonstrated their love for and commitment towards A in difficult circumstances where A has suffered fractures and has been separated from them for eight months, which is a long time in their and A’s lives. 12. The Guardian visited A and her parents on 2 November 2025 and left with no concerns. In her position statement for today’s hearing, the Guardian describes the parents as being very appropriate, gentle, tender, loving and affectionate towards A. They managed the usual toddler frustrations well, kept A entertained with structured activities and were child focused. The Guardian’s description of A as being a lovely child, very characterful and genuinely funny was wonderful to read. A is clearly happy and completely comfortable in her parents’ care.[40]It is clear to me that on the evidence I have read, the fact finding hearing listed to start on 17 November 2025 is now both unnecessary and disproportionate.[41]I give the LA permission to withdraw its application for a care order. It follows that the outstanding directions fall away.[42]I vacate the fact finding hearing and bring these proceedings to an end.[43]I am grateful to the parents for their dignity and patience in these proceedings. It must have been very difficult for them to be separated from A for so long.[44]I am grateful to the Maternal Aunt and to Mr and Mrs C for providing A with a home whilst she was away from her parents’ care. It is fortunate that family and friends were able to step forward.[45]I am also grateful to all the professionals for their hard work in this case.[46]I am pleased that A will be returning home today.[47]The basis for A’s continued placement away from her parents under s.20 CA 1989 is clearly no longer met. There is no reason for A to spend another day or night away from her parents’ care.[48]I wish the parents and A the very best in the future.[49]That is my judgment. Her Honour Judge McKinnell Luton Family Court 5 November 2025