The Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 227 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT CHESTER

Between

The Local AuthorityClaimant

The Mother & OrsDefendant

Date 2026-08-06

Anonymity

[1]This judgment concerns G, a young toddler boy. The judgment concerns the single issue of fact-finding in relation to the injury suffered by G to his left arm.

[2]This judgment is structured as follows: Section 1: Introduction Section 2: The proceedings and background Section 3: The parties’ positions Section 4: The local authority evidence, threshold and findings sought Section 5: The mother’s evidence Section 6: The father’s evidence Section 7: Applicable legal principles Section 8: Analysis Section 9: Findings and Decision THE PROCEEDINGS AND BACKGROUND 3. The application before the court is the local authority’s application for a care order which was issued on the 29 January 2026. 4. This is a finding of fact hearingwith the Court tasked with determining whether G has suffered non-accidental/inflicted injuries in relation to his left humerus and if so, then to determine the perpetrator of the injuries if possible. I have not set out the evidence which I read or heard in detail. Only the parents gave oral evidence, this was limited in duration, and it serves little purpose to merely repeat it. I have analysed the most pertinent and relevant parts. 5. In January 2026, the father took G to Hospital. Earlier in the morning, the parents contacted the GP reporting that G seemed “to have woken up with his left arm hurting and unable to use it for normal play or movement without it hurting”. The doctors at hospital observed swelling over the elbow joint on the left arm but an initial x-ray was inconclusive. A number of the doctors, but not all, felt that the parents’ accounts could not explain the injury observed. Two days later, further x-rays were undertaken, which revealed a minimally displaced humeral fracture. As a result of concerns that G’s arm may develop septic arthritis, he was transferred to a different hospital later that day. 6. A child protection medical report was completed. The doctor’s opinion was that G had suffered an unexplained metaphyseal fracture to the lateral condyle of the left humerus. He did not offer a definitive view on whether this was likely to have been the result of an unwitnessed accidental fall or an abusive twist and pull mechanism, noting only that the injury was uncommon for a child of G’s age. The doctor also raised concerns about the sleeping arrangements described by the parents, and specifically the possibility that G fell out of his bed (which had no sides) during the night. Following the medical, a strategy meeting was convened. The police arrested the parents. They were each interviewed on the same day and denied causing any injuries to G. They were subsequently released on bail. The local authority applied for a care order on the same day, 7. This case was initially allocated to HHJ Pates but reallocated to HHJ Hesford for final hearing. The hearing took place as a remote hearing at the request of the parents over 2 days including submissions and judgment. I had the opportunity of seeing the mother and father give evidence remotely and to form my own opinions about their evidence and credibility. It was useful to do so.

[3]THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS 8. The Local Authority sought findings against the mother and / or father in relation to the arm injury (as well as other agreed findings/matters). If such findings were made, they sought a final care order with a plan for foster care for G, with assessment of his paternal family in [a European country] as potential family carers. If a finding was not made, then the plan was for rehabilitation to the parents with a supervision order. 9. The parents both denied causing the injury and submitted that it was accidental in nature, although they accepted inadequate supervision, paragraph 16. 10. The Guardian aligned with the local authority’s plans.

[11]The Local Authority sought the following findings, although this judgment concerns only the arm injury. The “vape” incident (17/18) was conceded by the parents. Elbow injury sustained by G 5. G suffered a metaphyseal fracture of the distal left humerus Timing of the injury 6. The injury was no older than six days of age on the date of the first hospital visit Causation of the injury 7. The metaphyseal fracture was likely to be the result of a severe twisting/torsional force applied to the end of the bone 8. The injury was unlikely to have been caused by an accidental fall 9. The injury was unlikely to have been caused by vigorous or rough play 10. The metaphyseal fracture was the result of significant force applied to the bone. The amount of force is unknown but was significant, excessive, and greater than that used in the normal care and handling of a child11. The degree of force would be such that the person handling the child would realise they were likely to be harming the child

12. A person witnessing the incident would realise that the child was being harmed

13. A non-witnessing carer of the child would realise that the child had been injured The impact on the child

14. Following the fracture, G would have suffered significant physical harm in the following respects a) Acute pain. b) Swelling. c) An inability to use his left arm. d) Treatment in a cast to immobilise the arm and allow healing. Perpetrator

15. The injury was caused by the first respondent/and or the second respondent. In the alternative – a failure to supervise the child

16. In the event the court finds that the injury was caused by an unwitnessed accidental fall, the first and second respondent failed to adequately supervise G by permitting unsafe sleeping arrangements whereby he was able to get out of bed, leave his bedroom, and move around the home without adult supervision Inhalation of vape fumes

17. In July 2025, the first and second respondent failed to adequately supervise G, resulting in him inhaling nicotine vape [MB A6].

18. The first and second respondent failed to seek timely medical attention for G following this incident Conclusion 22. By virtue of the matters set out above, the local authority asserts that the child was at the relevant time suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant physical harm and/or neglect, attributable to the care likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him. 23. The court is invited to find that the threshold criteria are established and to make the findings sought by the local authority.

The Medical Evidence

[12]The medical evidence was agreed and the medics were not called or challenged. Dr Karl Johnson - Consultant Radiologist

[13]The report of Dr Johnson, radiologist, can be summarised as follows :• G suffered a metaphyseal fracture of the distal left humerus which was no older than 6 days of age on [the date of the first hospital visit].

• The metaphyseal fracture was the result of significant force applied to the bone. The amount of force required is unknown but is significant, excessive and greater than that used in the normal care and handling of a child.

• The fracture is typically the result of a severe twisting/torsional force applied to the end of the bone.

• An active mobile child of G’s age who falls onto an outstretched arm could generate sufficient force to cause a humeral fracture. However, in the expert’s clinical experience, children of this age do not typically sustain a metaphyseal fracture as the result of a fall.

• Fractures from a fall are usually caused to the forearm bones.

• In the expert’s opinion, a fall onto an outstretched arm onto the elbow would be unlikely to create the necessary torsional forces around the elbow joint to cause a metaphyseal fracture. However, the expert could not totally exclude a fall as a possible cause of the injury.

• In the absence of a suitable history, an unexplained fracture of this nature in a child of his age raises concerns about possible inflicted non-accidental injury. Dr Diana Birch - Consultant Paediatrician

[14]The report of Dr Birch, paediatrician, can be summarised as follows:• As a result of the fracture, G would have suffered acute pain, swelling, an inability to use the arm and acute distress on the examination of the elbow, which has required treatment in a cast to immobilise and allow healing.

• The fracture would have involved application of considerable force and it is unlikely that an unreported accident could have caused this fracture, which is likely to have involved some twisting, pulling action.

• An older child can acquire such a fracture from a fall on an outstretched arm, but this is unlikely at G’s age.

• However, G’s sleeping arrangements were unusual and unsafe for a child of 18 months, who even if developmentally advanced, should not have been allowed to get up and out of bed and climb out of the cot to go to his parents’ room. There were numerous opportunities for a child to be harmed by such inattention.

• G does not appear to have screamed or called out loudly, which he is likely to have done at the moment of a fracture if an accident had occurred.

• It is unlikely he fell from his cot because no fall or scream was heard or noted when he reached his parents’ room.

• It is also an unlikely cause due to the fact that some twisting movement appears to have been applied.

• However, one cannot entirely exclude a fall from the cot onto an extended arm with some twist occurring as the body falls at a different angle from the arm which may be ‘fixed’ by the hand against the floor, i.e. the momentum of the body falling could provide a slight twisting action.

• In the event the injury was inflicted, the person handling the child would realise they were likely to be harming the child and a witnessing carer would also realise that the child was being harmed. A non-witnessing carer would also realise that he had been injured.

• The expert’s overall opinion was that the medical evidence alone cannot distinguish or conclude that the injury is non-accidental rather than accidental or indeterminate.

• On the balance of probability in G’s case, the expert felt it was likely that this isolated fracture could be accidental as a result of him falling from his cot in the night.

[15]Having been asked to consider each other’s report, the experts confined their evidence to their areas of expertise but both agreed that an accidental fall was a possible cause of the fracture, although they disagreed on the level of probability.

[5]THE MOTHER’S EVIDENCE16. The mother's evidence was that G appeared entirely well when put to bed on the evening before the hospital visit. She next saw him during an early morning feed at about 4.30am to 5.30am, when she noticed he was reluctant to use his left arm, would not bear weight upon it, and became distressed when it was touched. Although she observed no visible injury, she considered immediately that something was wrong. The parents intended to seek medical advice as soon as the GP surgery opened and later recorded a video because they were concerned by G's presentation. She said that they initially sought GP assessment or referral before taking him to hospital.

17. The mother accepted that she could not identify when or how the fracture occurred because it was unwitnessed. She referred to two incidents which, in hindsight, caused her concern: the father walking briskly with G whilst holding his arm, and an occasion when he was spinning G during play. She also raised the possibility that G, a mobile and active child, may have left his room independently. G was sleeping in a toddler bed with the sides removed, a decision taken jointly by the parents because they believed it was safer than leaving him in a cot from which he was attempting to climb. She consistently denied that either she or the father caused the injury and maintained throughout that the fracture was accidental. She accepted, however, that she could not provide a definitive explanation for how it was sustained because no one witnessed the incident.

18. The mother gave evidence in a confident manner and was generally consistent, although somewhat evasive. She sought to effectively exclude anything from her police interview, which contradicted her other evidence, on the basis that she was not fit to be interviewed on the day due to illness and in shock. The police had assessed her as medically fit to proceed and she did participate. I cannot exclude her answers as she wishes, they do form part of the evidential canvas. She accepted that she had originally blamed the father but since decided that this was unfair. She was adamant that he had not hurt G’s arm during a massage. She appeared quite opinionated and holding strong belief about matters such as childcare safety, coming across as rather inflexible and reluctant to accept guidance. She was very clearly committed to the father and the relationship, putting him on an equal basis with G and it was clear that she would not end the relationship even if the father was found to be the perpetrator. These matters are more relevant to the welfare issues.

[6]THE FATHER’S EVIDENCE

[19]The father’ position was that G's left humerus fracture was accidental and was not caused by either parent. He denied causing the injury, denied knowing how it occurred, and rejected any suggestion that one parent injured G whilst the other failed to protect him. He stated that G was well throughout [the day before the hospital visit] and was observed using both arms normally during the day. He relied upon video footage from that morning which, he says, demonstrated normal use of the left arm. The first indication of any problem arose at about 4.30am on [the day of the hospital visit] when G woke distressed, with his left arm hanging limp and painful on movement. He accepted that he could not identify the precise mechanism of injury. He maintained that any explanations advanced by him were attempts to understand an unwitnessed injury rather than inconsistent accounts. He suggested that an accidental fall remained possible given that G slept in a toddler bed from which he could get out independently, sometimes moved around the home before his parents awoke, and had access to a recently introduced dining bench which he had previously attempted to climb.

[20]The father stated that he sought medical advice as soon as the GP surgery opened and took G to hospital following that advice. He further relied upon medical evidence which, he said, accepted that accidental causation could not be excluded. In summary, his case was that G was uninjured the day before, the injury first became apparent during the early hours of the following morning, the exact mechanism is unknown, and an accidental fall remains a possible explanation.

[21]He was straightforward in his responses to questions and it was clear that he had read the documentation and was well prepared. His evidence was consistent and he was not evasive although he sought to rely on the documentation on occasions rather than give his own opinion. He was honest and open about the events concerning J.

[7]APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

[22]The applicable legal principles are well established and can be stated briefly. The burden of proving the allegations rests upon the Local Authority. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The court must determine whether it is more likely than not that an alleged event occurred. As emphasised in Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator)

[2019] 2 FLR 211

, A Local Authority v H and Others, and Re A and B (Children: 'Parental Alienation') (No 5)

[2024] 1 FLR 447

, the court operates a binary system: a fact is either proved or not proved. There is no intermediate finding that an event may or might have occurred.

[23]Findings must be based upon evidence and not upon suspicion or speculation. As Munby LJ observed in Re B (Children) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof), suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. The court must consider the totality of the evidence and evaluate each evidential strand in the context of the case rather than in isolation. This includes oral testimony, documentary records, digital evidence, hearsay evidence where admissible, expert evidence, and any other relevant material. The court may draw proper inferences from the evidence but must do so based on the evidential picture viewed in the round.

[24]Expert evidence is frequently of considerable importance, particularly in cases involving medical issues, but it remains advisory. The ultimate responsibility for determining the facts lies with the court. The court must evaluate expert opinion alongside all other evidence and remain mindful that medical and scientific literature may inform expert opinion but does not replace it. Consistent with A County Council v A Mother & Ors

[2018] EWHC 3283 (Fam)

and Re D and A (Fact-Finding: Research Literature)

[2024] EWCA Civ 663

, the court should not undertake its own scientific analysis in a manner that displaces or distorts the evidence of appropriately qualified experts.

[25]In assessing the evidence of witnesses, I remind myself of the guidance in R v Lucas

[1981] QB 720

. A witness may tell a lie for many reasons unrelated to the issues the court must determine. An adverse inference should only be drawn where the court is satisfied that the lie was deliberate, material, and not attributable to mistake, confusion, misunderstanding, fear, shame, panic, or some other innocent explanation. I also distinguish between credibility and reliability. A witness may be honest but mistaken, and a witness who has been untruthful in one respect may nevertheless provide accurate evidence on another. I place limited weight upon demeanour, recognising that presentation in the witness box is an unreliable guide to truthfulness. Findings must be based upon the substance of the evidence, its consistency with contemporaneous records, and its overall probability.

[26]Where a child is found to have suffered non-accidental injury or other significant harm, the court should, where possible, identify the perpetrator on the balance of probabilities. If that cannot be done, the court must consider whether particular individuals should properly be included within a pool of possible perpetrators. However, the court must not assume that a perpetrator can or must be identified in every case and must remain open to the possibility that the precise cause of an injury or harm cannot be established. The burden and standard of proof remain unchanged throughout. The inability to identify a perpetrator does not remove concerns regarding risk. Findings that an individual falls within a pool of possible perpetrators, or findings that the cause of an injury remains uncertain, may nevertheless be highly relevant at the welfare stage when assessing a child's future safety and care.

[27]Finally, I bear in mind the observations of Hayden J in Lancashire County Council v M, F, A & J

[2023] EWHC 3097 (Fam)

, emphasising the court's obligation to consider the full evidential picture, including hearsay and propensity evidence where appropriate, and, where the evidence permits, to identify the perpetrator of significant harm. The exercise remains one conducted throughout on the balance of probabilities, requiring the court to evaluate all the evidence, both individually and collectively, before reaching its conclusions.

[28]Accordingly, I have evaluated all the evidence holistically, drawing such inferences as are properly open to me and reaching conclusions on the balance of probabilities, no more and no less.

[8]ANALYSIS

[29]In reaching my conclusions, I have considered all of the evidence, both oral and documentary, together with the written submissions advanced on behalf of each party, and have evaluated that evidence in the round.

[30]The Local Authority invites the court to find that G’s fracture was an inflicted injury and further to find that the father was responsible for causing it. The Guardian does not support a positive finding against either parent and expressly recognises the difficulties of making such a finding on the available evidence. The mother likewise opposes the findings sought by the Local Authority and submits that the evidence points towards the realistic possibility of an accidental injury, relying in particular upon the medical evidence of Dr Birch and the inability of the experts to exclude an accidental mechanism. The father similarly submits that the Local Authority's case falls short of the requisite standard of proof.

[31]The burden of proof rests throughout upon the Local Authority. The applicable standard is the balance of probabilities. There is no burden upon either parent to prove that they did not cause the injury, nor to provide the court with a satisfactory explanation for how it occurred. The absence of an explanation is not evidence of culpability and the court must guard against any inadvertent reversal of the burden of proof. I agree with the submissions made on behalf of the parents and the Guardian that the court's findings must be based upon evidence rather than suspicion or speculation and that the court must determine whether the Local Authority has established its case on the balance of probabilities, not whether alternative possibilities can be entirely excluded.

[32]I begin with the medical evidence. The injury was undoubtedly significant and unusual for a child of G's age. However, whilst the medical evidence can inform the court about possible mechanisms of injury, it does not determine the ultimate issue before the court. Importantly, neither expert was able to conclude that the injury was, on the balance of probabilities, inflicted rather than accidental. Nor were the experts able to identify a specific causative event. The medical evidence therefore establishes the nature of the injury but does not establish either how it occurred or who caused it. Indeed, accidental causation remains within the range of possibilities identified by the experts.

[33]The mother and father place particular reliance upon Dr Birch's opinion that an accidental fall from G's bed onto an outstretched arm, with the momentum of his body creating a twisting force, represented a plausible mechanism for the fracture. In her subsequent responses, Dr Birch maintained that such a mechanism could not be excluded and Dr Johnson confirmed that he and Dr Birch did not disagree that an accidental fall could cause the fracture, albeit with differing levels of probability. Whilst I do not regard those observations as determinative, they reinforce the conclusion that the medical evidence does not establish an inflicted injury and cannot exclude an accidental one.

[34]The Local Authority correctly submitted that medical evidence is only one part of the evidential picture and that the court must consider the wider factual canvas. I therefore turn to the other matters relied upon.

[35]The principal factors relied upon against the father are that he spent significant periods caring for G during the relevant timeframe; that the incidents initially identified by the parents involved his potentially careless or rough handling of G; that the mother initially suspected that one of those incidents may have caused the injury; that there had been a previous incident involving J; and that there was delay in seeking medical attention. Each of those matters is relevant and must be considered. However, in my judgment, none takes the Local Authority materially closer to proving its case. The father's opportunity to cause the injury is plainly a relevant consideration. However, opportunity alone is incapable of establishing causation. Many carers have opportunity to cause injuries to children; the existence of opportunity does not prove that an injury was in fact caused, still less that it was caused deliberately. Similarly, the various incidents involving the father's handling of G must be considered carefully. Those incidents were volunteered by the parents at a very early stage when they were attempting to identify anything which might explain the injury. Whatever criticism may be levelled at the parents in other respects, the fact that the parents themselves identified and disclosed those incidents is a factor I consider when assessing the overall reliability of the accounts provided. Whatever conclusions may be drawn from those accounts, the evidence does not establish that any of those incidents caused the fracture.

[36]The mother's initial suspicion of the father is likewise a relevant part of the evidential landscape. However, it must be viewed in context. Faced with an injured child and no obvious explanation, she understandably sought to identify events which might assist in understanding what had happened. Her position evolved over time. Whilst there are inconsistencies within her various accounts, including to the police, those inconsistencies do not themselves establish that the father caused the injury. They may affect weight and reliability, but they cannot supply evidence where evidence is otherwise lacking.

[37]Nor do I place significant weight upon the previous incident involving J. That incident undoubtedly demonstrated poor judgment, albeit potentially for explainable safety reasons. However, the evidence did not suggest that it was malicious. It cannot properly support an inference that the father had a propensity to inflict injury upon a child, still less that he inflicted this serious injury upon G. Such reasoning would place more weight upon the earlier incident than it can properly bear.

[38]The delay in seeking medical attention is a matter of concern and was rightly accepted by both parents, albeit reluctantly by the mother. She appeared to hold strong and firm beliefs in various areas about child care during her evidence and showed a lack of flexibility both in actions and thinking. However, whilst these issues may have relevance in other welfare contexts, it does not materially assist in resolving the central question before me, namely whether the injury was inflicted and, if so, by whom. Poor judgment in seeking treatment does not amount to evidence of causation.

[39]I have also taken account of the inconsistencies and imperfections within the evidence of both parents. Neither parent was an ideal witness but although aspects of the parents' evidence caused concern, those credibility issues do not provide affirmative proof of inflicted injury. There are aspects of their evidence which are difficult to reconcile and there are occasions upon which their recollections changed over time. However, fact-finding is not an exercise in choosing between imperfect witnesses. The issue remains whether the Local Authority has established its positive case. In my judgment the inconsistencies identified do not bridge the gap between suspicion and proof.

[40]Having heard the evidence, the Guardian did not invite the court to find that either parent inflicted the injury, or that either parent caused it and then failed to disclose the true circumstances. The Guardian expressly recognised that such findings would be difficult to make without engaging in speculation. In my judgment that assessment accurately reflects the evidential difficulties which remain at the conclusion of the hearing.

[41]Ultimately, the Local Authority asked the court to find both that the injury was inflicted and that the father was responsible. The difficulty is that neither proposition was established on the evidence. I am unable to determine, on the balance of probabilities, the mechanism by which the fracture occurred. The medical evidence establishes that both inflicted and accidental mechanisms remain possible, but neither expert concludes that inflicted injury is more likely than not. No witness saw the injury occur, there is no admission, and no identified incident has been proven as the cause of the fracture. The concerns relied upon by the Local Authority, whether viewed individually or cumulatively, establish opportunity and give rise to understandable suspicion, but they do not establish causation.

[42]Standing back and considering the evidence as a whole, G undoubtedly sustained a significant injury whilst in the care of his parents. That fact demands careful scrutiny. However, the court must determine probabilities rather than possibilities. The evidence does not enable me safely to conclude that the fracture was inflicted, nor does it enable me to identify either parent as responsible. Equally, an unwitnessed accidental injury occurring in the context of inadequate supervision remains a realistic possibility which has not been excluded by the expert evidence or the wider factual matrix.

[43]In those circumstances there remains an evidential gap between suspicion and proof. To bridge that gap would require the court to speculate as to both how the injury occurred and who caused it. That would be impermissible. Having reviewed all the evidence in the round, I am not satisfied that the Local Authority has proved on the balance of probabilities either that the fracture was inflicted or that either parent was responsible for causing it.

[9]FINDINGS AND DECISION

[44]Drawing the evidence together, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that G's fracture was inflicted or that either parent caused the injury. The evidential picture does not permit such findings to be made without speculation. Accordingly, I am unable to determine how the injury occurred or who caused it. The consequence is that the Local Authority has failed to prove the allegations relating to the causation and perpetration of G's arm injury. Those allegations are dismissed.

[45]Paragraph 16 is agreed and proved. HHJ Hesford Date 6 August 2026