Kent County Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 239 (B)

Case No ME25C50091[2026] EWFC 239 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT MEDWAY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Before
HHJ CLIVE THOMAS
Between
KENT COUNTY COUNCIL Applicant.ApplicantM 1st Respondent.RespondentH 2ndRespondentBRespondent(Minors acting by their Children’s 3rdRespondentGuardian).RespondentCWRespondentKENT COUNTY COUNCIL Applicant.M 1 st Respondent.-And –H 2nd Respondent-And –B(Minors acting by their Children’s 3 rd RespondentsGuardian).CW IntervenorLegal Representation.Miss Pryor (Counsel) for Applicant Local AuthorityMr Wauchope (Counsel) for First Respondent MotherMiss Cox, (Counsel) for Intervenor.Mr Braithwaite, (Counsel) for Second and Third Respondent ChildrenJudgement.Judgment Date: 12 th August 2026.Judgment contents.Page NoDate 2026-08-12
[1]Introduction: 3[2]Summary of judgment: 3[3]History: 3 – 9[4]Threshold: 9 – 11[5]The care plan: 11[6]The evidence: 11 -[7]The Law: 34 – 52[8]Discussion/analysis: 53 - 59[9]Threshold findings: 59 - 61[10]The welfare determination: 61 - 62[1]Introduction. The court is concerned with the welfare of two young boys H who is 5 and B who is 3. M is the mother of both children. CW is M’s ex –partner. All page number references in this judgment refer to the pdf numbers in the main bundle, the medical records bundle, (MR), the evidence matters bundle, (EM) and the supplemental bundle, (SB).[2]This judgment follows a trial that commenced on the 28th July 2026. These proceedings were initiated as a consequence of B, in March of 2025, presenting with bruises. A subsequent skeletal survey then revealed the presence of three fractures to his left and right forearm. The local authority maintain that these injuries were caused by M or CW or in the alternative that there is a real possibility that either adult inflicted the injuries. In the event that the court finds that M caused the injuries or that she along with CW is in the pool of perpetrators the local authority’s care plan is for the boys to remain living with the maternal grandmother, (MGM) and the maternal step grandfather, (MSGF) pursuant to a special guardianship order. Absent a finding of perpetration, the local authority’s care plan is for the children to be transitioned back into the full-time care of M. The guardian’s final position is that she supports these two alternative care plans.[3]i. I do not find on the balance of probabilities that the fractures and bruises were inflicted. ii. B’s fractures were likely sustained by B him accidentally falling onto a concrete floor. iii. M failed to adequately supervise B. iv. M failed to protect H and B from the emotional harm caused by CW’s verbal abuse and loss of temper. v. The children should be transitioned back into the care of M subject to a six month supervision order. History. On the 14th March 2025 M took B to see his GP who noted the following:
“ pt happy smiling, interacting with M and myself, moving well. M concerned about pt – seems clumsy, delayed in development, (only just started walking and not talking well at all), seems to not notice any pain eg fell and hit side of head on bookcase- got up and rubbed his head and carried on as normal – developed swelling and bruising...very picky over food, pinches at his ears....has sibling sleeping in same room, 4 years old ..M concerned that patient is doing this to himself as a stimulating thing or due to clumsiness – wonders if a sensory issue as doesn’t seem to respond to pain....worried what will happen at nursery when he starts as would not be 1:1 supervision/care”
. The note says that there should be a referral to paediatrics and a discussion with the safeguarding lead. On examination this was noted: “ two round bruises to forehead, potentially one in scalp on the left side frontal, fresh bruising to the pinna of the left ear, swelling about the ear, (doesn’t appear tender) old bruising to the left lower jaw, round bruise to the right side of chest, four round bruises to the left thigh, (mum states that this happened when playing with him), faint old bruise to back of right thigh.....PERLA, moving well, no coordination issues obvious”, (MR20).[4]At 20.45 on the 14th March 2025 the out of hours social worker attended at M’s property to take her and B to the hospital. It was noted that M had said that she had taken B to the GP as she was worried about an undiagnosed condition, (993).[5]B was initially seen by the registrar Dr S at 2.55 am on the 15th March 2025. Dr S completed a body map. The following bruises were noted on this body map. i. Right ear: Mild fading bruise to pinna of ear internally. ii. Forehead: Multiple fading bruises. iii. Left ear: Pinna and left ear bruised. There is then a further reference to a round circular bruise and swelling broken skin which was noted on the 16th March 2025. iv. Left thigh and left torso: Old bruises.[6]The notes of Dr S’s examination appear on page 154 MR. Dr S noted that M said that B fell over frequently on the concrete floors in the flat and that he threw and thrashed his head around in the buggy. M “thinks this is how he hurt his ear, she is not sure how he hurt his ear”. It was noted that M was worried as B did not cry when he fell over and hurt himself. M informed Dr S that she lived alone with the boys, and her only support was her mother, (MR155).[7]At 9.52 on the 15th March 2025 B was seen by the consultant Dr T who on page 151 noted this:
“Admitted due to safeguarding concerns at GP re bruising on body Old bruises- L side of chest, L lateral thigh, forehead, L pinna Mum reports he is unsteady on feet and often falls onto the hard concrete floor of emergency accommodation, has observed this multiple times Mum concerned that he may have delayed development- unsteady on feet, unaware of surroundings / bumping into things, single words only. Thinks he may be autistic thrashing, flapping hands, fussy diet, doesn't cry after falling over. Fled physically abusive relationship with father of her children 2 yrs ago, known to social services briefly following this, no contact with him at all Bloods sent overnight- all clotted. Head circumference- 48.5cm. Looks well kept. Behaving appropriately. Born at term, normal delivery, uncomplicated pregnancy, nil issues following this. On examination is unsteady on feet. Dr T explained that most of the bruising is in keeping with him falling over aside from the one on the ear.”
[8]On the 15th March 2025 Dr T allowed M to return home with the boys so that they could “freshen up”. The medical records suggest that M was home with the boys from 11am to 4pm, (1001).[9]On the 16th March 2025 at 9.42 B was seen by Dr T. The clinical note on page 144 MR records this: “Bruise on pinna is better but new bruise behind left ear with mild swelling. Mum doesn’t know how new bruise happened says he has walked into bin and sink but no falls….explained that new bruise behind ear is unexplained, mum upset feeling like people are accusing her of harming her child”.[10]During a ward review on the 16th March 2025 at about 10.15 this is noted:
“M reported to have noticed another bruise behind B's upper left ear lobe (base of temporal bone). Mother does not know how this happened but believes that he may have hit his ear either whilst he was in his buggy or on the edge of bed/sink/rubbish bin located in the cubicle. When challenged that the location of the bruise is not where we would normally expect children 'bumping onto thing' to be. M became very upset and defensive that we are acussing her of physically abusing her child and that she has never been reported of doing such things. She was frustrated that we keep asking her to 'tell her story' but she is telling the truth and that his bruises are caused by him hitting his head on objects around the house”
. A clinical note of the 16th March 2025 notes that “B also had an injury to his R inner ear lobe upper region which mother was aware of and hence reason she presented to the GP”, (MR 141). The notes also says this: “He also had multiple bruises to his forehead, some of which are fading, a fading bruise to the lateral aspect of his left torso and lateral aspect of his left thigh. These are consistent with injuries expected of child of B's age who have just established independent walking. During my clinical examination, B was observed to be walking with an unsteady gait and did not show any awareness of objects obstructing his path or around him and therefore would bump in them. His mother has videos of him rocking back and forth in his pram- but this was not forceful enough to cause the injury to his ears”.[11]On 16th March 2025 the social worker spoke to the consultant Dr T who said that the new bruise was definitely not present yesterday when she examined B, (998). This is then noted, “Dr T was clear in her view that this type of injury is not consistent with you having been beaten, but it is unusual and unexplained....and that non accidental injuries do not present like this...she said that maybe you fell sideways and hit your head...she said that in her view this is more about M being educated around supervision....she has no other concerns for you, your presentation or your interactions with mum”. The note records that M said that B had accidently hit his head under the sink whilst in hospital but “the Dr advised that this would not cause the bruise and demonstrated this to M”, (1001). It was noted that on the 15th March M had left the hospital at about 11am and returned back at 4pm. The social worker asked Dr T how the bruise to the left ear could have occurred. Dr T’s response was that it would be a specific pressure where the bruise suggests high impact with an object for example. On page 1002 the social worker records that “Dr T re – examined B and updated the body map as had not recorded/seen bruising in the right ear yesterday”.[12]There is an undated CP medical report completed by Dr T following the assessments that were carried out on the 15th and 16th March 2025, (1104). It was noted that B was initially seen by Dr S, the paediatric registrar. It was recorded that M informed Dr S and herself that she was the sole carer for the children. The report then records this:
“She witnessed that B hit the side of his head on the right side a few days ago, he just rubbed it off and continued playing without crying. (mother was not specific as to where he hit his head) She mentioned that he can hit his head on various places and he is constantly bruising..........During his ward review on 16/03/2025 at about 10:15- M reported to have noticed another bruise behind B's upper left ear lobe (base of temporal bone). Mother does not know how this happened but believes that he may have hit his ear either whilst he was in his buggy or on the edge of bed/sink/rubbish bin located in the cubicle. When challenged that the location of the bruise is not where we would normally expect children 'bumping onto thing' to be. M became very upset and defensive that we are accusing her of physically abusing her child and that she has never been reported of doing such things. She was frustrated that we keep asking her to 'tell her story' but she is telling the truth and that his bruises are caused by him hitting his head on objects around the house.....B was observed to be walking with an unsteady gait and did not show any awareness of objects obstructing his path or around him and therefore would bump in them”
. Five bruises were noted. “ 1. He has multiple bruises to his forehead, some of which are fading- these are consistent with injuries expected of child of B's age who have just established independent walking and is prone to accidental fall. See photos 7&8. 2. He has a fading bruise to the left lateral aspect of his torso and lateral aspect of his left thigh. Mother reports she did not directly witness how B sustained this bruises but suspects he could have ‘bumped onto things’ at home. See photos 5 & 6 below. 3. There was a left upper and inner earlobe (M thinks this could have resulted from hitting the side of his head on his pram) 4. Faint bruise to his R inner ear lobe (upper region) which mother was aware of and hence reason she presented to the GP. 5. Circular bruise with swelling and broken skin at base of temporal bone just behind the upper lobe of the left ear- noted on the 16/03/25 – M did not witness how B sustained this injury. In my opinion the explanation given by M on how B sustained bruises labelled 2-4 above is questionable are these as very unusual sites for children to sustained accidental injury. Therefore NIA or neglect could not be ruled out”[13]On the 17th March 2025, M was seen by Dr R, (130). M became upset and said that she would not hurt B “he is unsteady/unstable on his feet and constantly bumps or falls into things mainly on his left side where the bruising is noted”. As M picked B up she accidentally caught his head on the bedside light “B appeared unphased by this”. A nursing note completed on the 17th March 2025 noted that “when walking around, B tends to walk at a slant towards his right and left, varies each time to which he then appears to fall over or walk into objects around him. B also appears to throw himself backwards in his pushchair”, (135).[14]On the 17th March 2025 M was arrested and charged with ABH in respect of the bruises. On the 17th March 2025 M was interviewed by the police. On page 1185 this is noted: “she said the bruising on his forehead is old and he tries to hit his head off things all the time. The injuries to the child’s torso she said was a birth mark …the leg bruising she isn’t sure how this was caused however could have been from when she had to restrain B” so the doctors could examine him. “She said the injury to the ear was caused by a fall on Thursday 13th March at around 3pm where he fell backwards in his brother’s room onto a hard surface hitting his ear she said that she went to the doctors the next day because of this fall” and he was not reacting like a normal child when her hurts himself and doesn’t cry.[15]On the 20th March 2025 social services receive an anonymous phone call from a friend of M who “reported that M had been in an abusive relationship with CW and that he is not a good man and has previously threatened to kill M and her children”, (1188). Following the discovery of the forearm fractures M was rearrested on the 21st March 2025 and charged with GBH. M was interviewed by the police for a second time on the 21st March as was CW. The interview summary of CW appears on page 1179 and records this: “The suspect denied having inflicted GBH level injuries to the victim and does not know who has. He explained that B resides with his mum, and he was only at the address the night before because he went to see whether M was okay. He explained that M had taken B to the doctors and went to Medway Hospital and has been there ever since. The suspect explained that M had told him this at the beginning of the week. The suspect explained that him and M had disagreements and ended up falling apart. They were dating up until December 2024 when they broke up and had started dating at the end of 2023 to 2024. The suspect had never lived at the address with M but would stay over once or twice a week. He said that M, B and H lived at the address. He said that he has only seen M twice this year and B was not present for either of these occasions. He explained that on these two occasions he stayed outside of the address….. The suspect was asked why he left the address when police arrived. The suspect said that he did not run away and was stood outside of the address and was leaving to go home and that he did not go into the house. He said that when he left we was not aware police was present at the address until the officer stopped him on the pavement…….He never heard B crying or complaining and M told him that B does not make any sounds when he hurts himself. The suspect was shown the bruises and he said that he had no idea how these were caused and he has not seen the bruises before. He also said that he has not seen B with similar bruises. The suspect explained that he has a little one who is always banging his head and therefore the bruises to his forehead and legs seem standard to him but he is unsure about the bruising to the ear. He said that M is a good mum and he has never seen her chastising her children. He has never seen M discipline and would never say that she would do this to her children. The suspect said that the two siblings get on well together but sometimes he has witnessed H be quite hands on and has seen him push B and snatches toys from him”.[16]The summary of M’s second interview with the police on the 21st March 2025 appears on page 1183. In that interview M avers that she had taken B to the doctors because he showed no signs of pain. The note then records this:
“this first became apparent …last week when B stepped back and the back of his heel stood on a book which made him fall backwards and his ear and side of his head on his brother’s bed she explained that he did not cry or make a fuss despite the fact that he instantly had a big lump to the side of his head. The suspect explained that when B walks he veers to the left with his left foot turns outwards. the suspect was asked about her relationship with CW and how he is around her children. She explained that CW is very good with the children and he adores her boys. She explained that she knows she told social care that she didn’t see him but she done this because she knew it would make her look bad. She explained that CW came round the night before because she was home and did not like being home alone so asked him to come over. She said that he was on his way out when Police knocked so she is unaware whether he knew police was there or not”
. M said that CW had been in the address within the last 6 weeks and that the children are always in her vision and CW has not been left unattended with B. M said that she had not witnessed CW lose his temper with the children and that she had not witnessed any concerning behaviour from him “she thinks that last time CW saw B was 2/3 weeks ago when he walked past the address and knocked on the window and asked if he could come in. she said that they broke up at the end of December 2024, (1184).......she said CW has been around B but never left on his own with him”. It was put to M that the doctors had said that the bruising to B’s leg was caused by high impact, M said that she had to restrain B whilst at the doctors and to do this she pushed down on his legs.[17]On the 26th March 2025 M was interviewed by the police for the third time, (1181). The interview summary recorded this:
“M further raised that she is aware that CW is not allowed to have his own son and feels as if she should have probed more into this rather than relying on what he told her. M was challenged that in her last interview she said that CW was not left unsupervised with B and that she was not in a relationship with him. She explained that she has been in a relationship with him but this was not shared with her family. She also shared that when they became aware of the fractures CW said to her that it's in her best interest to not share that he has been around because it may get her in more trouble. She explained that CW is very good with his words and getting his own way. There were previous occasions that M said that she debated taking B to the doctors as he often gets bruises on his forehead and she hasn’t because CW has made comments like, "WOULD LOOK WEIRD." She explained that CW was at the address on the Thursday B hurt his ear and on the Friday he was not overly pleased that she was taking him to the doctors. She said that CW was at her address most days and would often stay over and then go back to his address for a short while before returning. M explained that since having her children taken away and the last police interview she has had a lot of time to sit and think things through. She said she found it weird that CW was changing her Netflix account and that he changed the account name to "SORRY". She said that throughout their relationship he never apologised and that it was strange to her. This has made her question whether he has done something. M was asked what she wanted to speak about today as she had requested the interview herself. She explained that since her last interview she has had time to sit and think everything through and there was a couple of things she wanted to talk about. M says that only her and CW had access to her Netflix account and that since she had been bailed CW had changed the name of the account from Mumma to “I love you gorgeous” “sorry” “I love you”
. M also said that CW had changed the name the previous night to “can you give me a sign”. M says that she had left B with CW on approximately five occasions this year when she was doing the school run with H and the weather was bad. She said that she had never returned and noticed B in distress or with bruises and swelling. M says that she had never noticed any signs of swelling or bruising and she did not recall ever grabbing him by the arms or witnessing anyone else doing so.[18]Following M’s arrest the children, for a short period, were cared for by the maternal grandfather, (MGF). In July of 2025 M and the children moved to a Residential Assessment Centre. In December 2025 the centre produced a report in which they recommended that the boys should not be separated from M. On the 19th December 2025 the children moved to the care of the MGM and the MSGF where they have remained to date. Under this arrangement M has continued to be actively involved in the children’s care and spends regular supervised time caring for her sons.[19]Between April and May of 2026 M undertook a programme of direct work with a social worker assistant. It was noted that M engaged positively with this work. It was also noted that M was still smoking cannabis. On the 1st July 2026 the allocated social worker provided a positive addendum parenting assessment.[20]The threshold allegations. There are essentially five threshold allegations in respect of the fractures, bruising, a failure on the part of M to protect, a domestic abuse incident that took place in December 2024 and M’s use of cannabis. The allegations have been particularised thus: - i. The three fractures.[21]It is asserted that B, on a date unknown but between approximately the 1st and 15th March 2025, sustained a buckle fracture to the right distal radius at the wrist. The second alleged fracture was a transverse fracture of the left ulna that was sustained on a date unknown but between approximately the 15th December 2024 to the 15th February 2025. The third alleged fracture was also it is said sustained on a date unknown but between approximately the 15th December 2024 to the 15th February 2025 and was probably sustained at the same time as fracture number two. The local authority allege that these fractures were caused by the infliction of force by M and/or CW or in the alternative they were sustained in an unwitnessed accidental fall, as a result of a lack of supervision on the part of M. The local authority aver that the fractures would have been exquisitely painful for B and it would have been obvious to M and CW that he was hurt regardless of whether or not they had inflicted the injuries. ii. The bruising.[22]It is alleged that on the 14th March and the 16th March 2025 B presented with bruising. On the 14th March 2025 it is said that B presented with four bruises namely fading bruises to the left lateral aspect of his torso, fading bruises to the lateral aspect of the left thigh, bruises to the left upper and inner ear lobe and a bruise to the upper region of the right inner ear lobe. On the 16th March 2025 B presented with a circular bruise with swelling and broken skin at the base of the temporal bone just behind the upper lobe of the left ear. The local authority allege that the bruising was more likely inflicted by M and/or by CW. iii. Failure to protect.[23]The local authority assert that if the court finds that the bruising and/or fractures were caused by CW then M failed to protect B from harm as she was aware that CW had a violent temper and that she should have realised that this placed her children at risk of physical harm. iv. Domestic abuse.[24]It is alleged that on the 13th December 2024 during the course of an argument CW shouted at M, made her fear that he would headbutt her and that he kicked a door off its hinges. v. Substance Misuse.[25]It is said that M was a regular user of cannabis whilst the children were in her care and that this placed them at risk of harm through neglect of their needs.[26]M’s response to the allegations. M denies having caused the fractures, denies any knowledge of when and how these injuries were sustained and avers that if the court makes a finding of non-accidental injury, then these injuries were caused by CW. M accepts that the fractures may have been sustained in an accidental fall and accepts that if the court finds that the fractures were accidental and occurred whilst B was in her care that her supervision was inadequate. As to the allegation that the fractures were exquisitely painful M asserts that B sometimes hurt himself and denies that he presented in such a way as to have led her to conclude that he had suffered such injuries.[27]M maintains that the bruising was caused accidentally but if the court concludes that they were non accidental M avers that they were caused by CW. M accepts that if the court finds that the injuries were inflicted by CW she failed to protect B. M also accepts that an incident of domestic abuse occurred in December 2024.[28]CW’s response to the allegations. CW asserts that he did not cause the fractures and/or the bruising and is unsure as to how they were sustained. In respect of the fractures CW says that he does not recall a time when B was in pain. On the domestic abuse allegation CW confirms that an argument did ensue between himself and M because M threatened to lock him in the house.[29]The local authority’s care plan. The local authority’s care plan for the boys is that “if the court makes no findings against M and/or that she failed to protect, the Local Authority's position is that B and H should return to the care of their mother”. This would be subject to a six month supervision order, (525). The local authority submit that “if the court makes findings against M that she is to be found in the Pool of Perpetrators”, the children should remain in the care of the MGM and MSGF pursuant to a special guardianship order.[30]The medical evidence. Medical reports have been obtained from a consultant paediatrician Dr Rose, a paediatric radiologist Dr Watt and a consultant haematologist Dr Allameddine. Dr Rose and Dr Watt were called to give oral evidence.

Dr Rose. Medical report 27th August 2025

[31]Dr Rose. Medical report 27th August 2025 The bruises. Dr Rose opined that that the bruising to B’s thigh “is consistent both with accidental and inflicted injury”, (646 para 66). The bruising to B’s forehead is “consistent with accidental bruising, the bruising to his flank is indeterminate”, (paragraph 68). Dr Rose opined that “the bruising to his ear and behind his ear is more likely caused by inflicted injury”, (paragraph 68). Dr Rose refers to M’s description in her police interview of the 21st March 2025 when B had his heel on a book and then toppled backwards into the frame of a bed causing the bruising to his left ear and caused “massive swelling”, (paragraph 69). In paragraph 70 Dr Rose says this: “Although such a description is plausible as a cause for an injury to his left ear it would not explain the totality of the bruising to the upper and inner aspects of his left ear noted on 15th March 2025 plus the new bruise behind his left ear not present on 15th March 2025 but present on 16th March 2025”.[32]On page 649 Dr Rose noted that M had been consistent in her comments that B did not respond with distress to bruising himself and that “if that is true then B may merely have reacted by rubbing the injured part but not with distress”. Dr Rose thus opined that it was “possible therefore that when he sustains bruises from collisions or fall not witnessed by M she may not have been aware that he had sustained an injury”.[33]The fractures. Dr Rose opined that radiologically and biochemically there was no evidence that B has an increased propensity to suffer fractures. B’s PTH levels were low the reasons for which was unknown. Dr Rose advances two alternatives for the fractures either an unwitnessed accident when B fell on to an outstretched arm, (page 647, paragraph 73) or “inflicted by a direct blow or a bending action”, (paragraph 76).[34]Dr Rose opined that “the fractures would have been exquisitely painful……..it is my opinion that B would have been distressed even if the event had not been directly witnessed his distress would have been a memorable event”, (paragraphs 73 and 74). In paragraph 75 Dr Rose says this: “It is my opinion that it would have been obvious to a carer that B had hurt himself but it would not necessarily have been obvious that he had sustained an injury in that there would have been no outward manifestation of the fractures. It is possible that B would have continued using his arms so there would not have been differential movements between his two arms to alert a carer of an injury to his arm”.[35]Dr Rose noted M’s comments that B did not appear to react to pain with distress. Dr Rose opined that there “is a different level of pain between falling and sustaining a bruise and falling and sustaining a fracture”, ( paragraph 73). Dr Rose’s view is that the fractures to B’s right and left arm occurred at different times with the two fractures to the left arm likely occurring at the same time, (paragraph 71). Dr Rose comments that it “is of concern though that there is no history of two episodes of significant distress associated with B sustaining the fractures”, (paragraph 78).[36]Dr Rose’s oral evidence. The Fractures. Dr Rose informed Mr Braithwaite that it was difficult to accept that a child who had fractured two bones would not have experienced considerable pain. Dr Rose said the acute pain would have dissipated “after several minutes ..after 10 to 15 minutes” and that he was “convinced that there was an episode of significant distress”. Dr Rose informed Miss Cox that B did feel pain as M described him rubbing an injured body part. Dr Rose accepted that children have different reactions to pain. Dr Rose said that he was “troubled by the suggestion that B would not have reacted to three fractured bones that would suggest an abnormal pain sensation. I am not aware that that is relevant”. Dr Rose said that it was “so unlikely that B would not have experienced significant pain but I cannot absolutely exclude that possibility”. In response to questions from me Dr Rose said that displaced fractures with angulation cause greater pain.[37]Dr Rose explained that there would have been no swelling or deformity of the arm, that it was possible that B would have used his arm less than normal but it may not have been noticeable. Dr Rose said that it was possible when being dressed and undressed that a carer may have seen something wrong with B’s arm “but the origin of distress may not have been obvious to a carer, there was no swelling or angulation there was no abnormality to alert a carer that there was a problem with the forearm”.

Thigh bruises

[38]Thigh bruises Dr Rose informed Miss Pryor that given the absence of a history of an accident and the debate in the medical literature as to whether these are indicative of accidental or non-accidental injury “it is not possible even absent a history to come down on one side ...it is equally possible that these are inflicted or accidental”. Dr Rose said that accidental bruising tends to have a round shape but the photograph on page 1093 was also consistent with fingertip bruising “but the shape does not let me say more consistent with one or the other”. Dr Rose said that it was unusual to have linear bruising on one thigh only and one would expect the bruises to be on both thighs. Dr Rose said that the number and shape of the bruises “pushes it slightly to inflicted”. Dr Rose informed Mr Wauchope that the linear pattern of the bruises does not exclude fingertip bruising.[39]Forehead bruises. Dr Rose informed Miss Pryor that the forehead bruising was where one would expect to see accidental bruising and they are more likely to be consistent with an accidental cause.[40]Torso. Dr Rose stood by the view expressed in his report that the cause of this bruise was indeterminate.[41]Right ear. Dr Rose was taken to page 1198 which are the photographs taken on the 17th March 2025. Dr Rose was also shown a video that was taken on the 15th. Dr Rose says that he can see a bruise to the upper part of the ear but not within it. Dr Rose said that a toddler thrashing around in their pushchair is not unusual toddler behaviour and “and we don’t see that as a regular event”.[42]Left ear. Dr Rose in response to questions from Miss Pryor said that there was a new bruise present on the 16th March and that it did not make sense that this bruise was as a consequence of the one-off incident on the 13th “a delayed bruise does not make sense capillaries are broken at the same time so the bruise is visible at the same time”. Dr Rose also said that he could not see how one event could cause a bruise to the inner and outer aspect of the ear and if there had been a collision with the bedframe, he would anticipate a single bruise and not two discrete bruises. Dr Rose was taken to MR 144 which is the clinical note of the 16th March 2025 at 9.42 in which Dr T noted “bruise on pinna is better but new bruise behind left ear with mild swelling”. Dr Rose said that if this was caused by the incident on the 13th March the swelling would have occurred around about the same time and he anticipated that the swelling would be present within 30 – 60 minutes of the incident causing the bruise. Dr Rose said that it was unlikely that the left ear bruising was caused by a single event. The medical records showed the pinna improving and an acute bruise behind the ear with swelling. When Miss Pryor asked Dr Rose when this bruise behind the ear could have occurred Dr Rose replied, “it could have occurred an hour before that is the latest...30 minutes to an hour before the ward round to have it visible....the swelling could have been caused by an injury several hours before that I cannot put a number on it”. Dr Rose said that it was “possible” that the injury could have occurred the previous afternoon.[43]In response to questions from me Dr Rose said that it was likely that there had been three events, a pinching injury to the top of the pinna, a direct blow with a hand or object underneath that injury and the third blow behind the ear. Dr Rose doubted that B at 21 months old would have had sufficient strength to cause the pinching injury and that in his practice he has not seen these sort of self-inflicted injuries in toddlers and that he struggled to remember seeing any child of that age with pinch injuries to the left and right ear. Dr Rose informed Mr Wauchope that it was “possible” that if B had fallen backwards sufficiently hard and struck his ear on a hard object that could explain the injury to the outside of the ear and that it was “theoretically possible that one blow could cause the lower inner bruise and transmitted to the outer aspect….but I don’t see how that could cause broken skin…..I cannot see how a single incident can cause the injury to the inner and outer ear”.[44]Dr Watt, consultant paediatric radiologist. Dr Watt identified three fractures. The first was a buckle fracture of the right distal radius at the wrist which on the 15th March 2025 was probably less than two weeks old, (600). The mechanism for this injury could either have been a fall onto an outstretched arm, a direct blow, impact to the forearm or possibly a bending force applied to the forearm, (601). Dr Watt opined that “I would have expected a carer present at the time of injury to have realised that an injury may have taken place, but not necessarily that a fracture had occurred depending on the degree of loss of function as buckle fractures may show less in the way of pain, swelling and deformity than complete fractures.I would have expected a carer who was not present at the time of injury to possibly find it difficult to identify that something was wrong with B’s arm unless there was obvious pain and loss of function”. Dr Watt recognised that the clinical response to pain of children of this age can be variable and he thus deferred to a paediatrician on issues relating to clinical presentation after injury.[45]The second and third fractures says Dr Watt were a healing transverse fracture of the distal shaft of the left ulna and a healing fracture of the left radial neck. Based on the radiological findings Dr Watt opined that these fractures were probably between 1 and 3 months old. Dr Watt says that the fractures could have occurred at separate times but probably occurred at the same time as the same part of the forearm was affected and they showed the same approximate radiographic age. Dr Watt’s opined that the mechanism for these fractures could be a direct blow, or impact to the forearm, a bending force or possibly a twisting force applied to the forearm, (602). On the same page Dr Watt says this: I would have expected a carer present at the time of injury to have realised that an injury may have taken place, and that a fracture had probably occurred depending on the loss of function which was likely to be present. I would have expected a carer who was not present at the time of injury to probably identify that something was wrong with B’s arm due to the loss of function. I understand that the clinical response to pain of children of this age can be variable and I would defer to a Paediatrician on issues relating to clinical presentation after injury”.[46]Dr Allameddine, Consultant Haematologist. Dr Allameddine opined in his report of August 2025 that the available clinical, laboratory and historical evidence did not “suggest an underlying moderate or severe bleeding disorder”. Dr Allameddine also says that “mild bleeding disorders cannot be completely excluded without further evaluation, their probability appears low, and their potential contribution would only slightly lower the threshold needed to induce the bruising”, (630). Following questions put to him Dr Allameddine on the 13th October 2025 considered that there was no need for further tests and that he was “confident that B does not have any clinically significant bleeding disorder”, (664).[47]M’s evidence. M has provided five witness statements in addition I had the benefit of hearing M’s oral evidence.[48]M’s witness statement dated the 11th April 2025. On page 283 M says this: “On Thursday 13th March sometime between lunch and dinner, I saw B fall backwards. I am currently in emergency accommodation. The floor in the flat is bare concrete and it is cramped. It is possible that he slipped on a book of his brothers. Later on I noticed that a lump had appeared, but he was not behaving differently and so I decided to keep an eye on him overnight. In the morning I could see that a bruise had appeared on his ear. I though he may have knocked his head against the ladder/bed. I contacted the GP and arranged an appointment for B to be seen. This was on Friday 14th March. It was from this appointment on Friday 14th March that the GP referred the matter into Children’s Services”.[49]M says that B started walking at the beginning of the year and that he has always been very unsteady on his feet. M says that B’s “left foot seems to stick out to the left and when he walks his whole body veers to the left. This means that B can walk into door frames, or bend down to pick something up and knock himself”. M says that she has often seen B throw his head back and forth and side to side including when he is in his buggy. M says that the photograph of B’s left leg which she believes was taken on the 16th March and which shows a bruise was when she held B quite firmly so that the medics could draw blood. M says that CW was spending time with her and the children between approximately the 29th December until the 20th March 2025 that he would stay most nights. M says that CW was alone with B for about 30 minutes when she did the school run or if she had to use the shower or toilet, (284). M says that she was not aware of CW physically harming the children but on one occasion she saw CW lift B from the floor by his hands or wrists.

M’s final witness statement dated the 12th July 2026

[50]M’s final witness statement dated the 12th July 2026 M accepts that when the proceedings commenced, she would smoke cannabis, (455). M says that she does “not believe that my drug use contributed to the harm suffered or that the children were neglected but I do accept that it presented a potential risk and I regret it”. M addresses the alternative care plan set out by the local authority depending upon whether or not the court makes adverse findings against her. M says that even if the court were to make such findings the local authority was not taking into account the progress that she has made since these proceedings were commenced in March 2025 “and that the risk of any future significant harm to the children has been addressed”.[51]M’s oral evidence. Injury to left ear on Thursday 13th March 2025 In the video of her interview with the police that took place on the 17th March 2025 M informed the police officer that B sustained an injury to his ear when he fell onto B’s bed and that took place at 3pm. M informed Mr Wauchope that she was sitting on the sofa and B was walking backwards and he had his heel on a book and he fell. M said that B did not cry and that he rubbed his head. M said that “I comforted him and gave him kisses but he was straight up again”. M informed Miss Pryor that the accident on the 13th March 2025 occurred during the late afternoon between 2 – 4pm. M said that she was sitting on the sofa watching the children and also watching the television. M said that she saw B stand on a book and he toppled backwards and that she applied an ice pack as the left ear was slightly red. Miss Pryor took M to the phone messages from CW’s phone on the 13th March 2023, (EM 118). This reveals that between 14.19 and 15.37 M was messaging CW whilst M was out of the home. In cross M said that she did not know where she was and that she was not sure if B had hurt himself before or after she went out but that she could not see herself having gone out if B had hurt himself. In chief M had said that she had given B calpol. Miss Pryor took M to her police interview on page 1522 where she says that she only gave B calpol if he had a high temperature. M said that what she told the police was more likely to have been accurate.[52]M informed Miss Pryor that the main reason why she had made the appointment with the GP on the 14th March 2025 was “the bruise on his ear and he didn’t show signs of being hurt”. In the Paediatric Safeguarding Assessment Care and Discharge Plan, (MR 140) it was noted that on the 16th March 2025 there was unexplained bilateral bruising to the ears. On the same page it was noted that M “witnessed that B hit the side of his head on the right side a few days ago”. M informed Miss Pryor that “I may have got confused I don’t remember how the bruise to the other side happened”. On the 15th March 2025 the social worker records that she was on the telephone to M who was at the hospital, (995). Dr T came into M’s room and the social worker notes that she remained on the phone. The social worker records this:
“Mum spoke of the bruising on your ears, one she saw you fall onto it and the other she is unsure but wonders if you pinch your ear in the night as a sensory thing”
. Dr T is also said to have commented that B is well cared for, well nourished and appropriately behaved.[53]In respect of the new bruise seen on the 16th March 2025 M informed Miss Pryor that on the 15th March just before lunch she returned home with the children and that she returned to the hospital at approximately 3pm. M says that CW was present and that she had a shower and B was asleep in his buggy. On the body map prepared by Dr S bruises were noted to both the right and left ear and on the 14th March the GP only noted bruises to the left ear. M said that she had only seen the bruise to the left ear. M told Mr Braithwaite that she took B to the GP on the 14th March 2025 because of the bruises and because she was worried about the way that B did not seem to respond normally to pain.[54]The bruise behind the left ear noted on the 16th March 2025. M said that on the 15th March she left the hospital with the children at lunchtime and that she returned at 3pm so that B could have the skeletal survey. M told Miss Cox that CW was present when he returned home and that he was on his x box. M told me that she had seen B whilst they were in hospital walk into the bin and the side of the sink.[55]Other bruises. Miss Pryor put to M that she had told the police during the interview on the 17th March 2025 that the mark to B’s left torsowas a birth mark. However, in the child protection medical report on 1106 M makes no mention of the birth mark but suspected that he could have bumped into things at home. Miss Pryor took M to the GP entry for the 14th March 2025, (MR 20). The GP noted “four round bruises to the left thigh, (mum states that happened when playing with him”. In the child protection medical Dr T reported that in respect of the left thigh bruises “M reports she did not actually witness how B sustained this bruises but suspects he could have “bumped onto things” at home, (sic). In her oral evidence M said “I panicked I just didnt always see and thought that would go against me....I panicked because social services were involved”. Miss Pryor took M to her police interview of the 21st March 2025, (1526) in which M asserts that B may have sustained the thigh bruises when she restrained him so that the doctors could take some blood. Miss Pryor took M to the GP entry of the 14th March 2025 where the GP recorded four round bruises to the left thigh, (MR 20). Miss Pryor took M to Dr S’s body map completed at 2.55am on the 15th March 2025 which records three old bruises to B’s left thigh. Miss Pryor took M to Dr S’s note of the 15th March, (MR 155) which indicates that Dr S completed the body map where she recorded the thigh bruises before she took any blood from B. M accepted that the bruises seen and noted on the body map were the same bruises noted by the GP.[56]The presence of CW in her home. M confirmed to Miss Pryor that she started her relationship with CW in the January of 2024 that they broke up in December 2024 and the relationship resumed after Christmas of 2024. M said that CW would stay at her home most nights. M confirmed that she would leave B with CW when taking B to nursery, and when M went out shopping and that most days she would leave her children in the care of CW. M informed Miss Cox that both she and CW would dress and bathe the children.[57]M informed Mr Wauchope that she did lie to the police officer on two occasions during the interview on the 17th March 2025 that she was the only person present in her home. M said that CW had told her that if he took B to the doctors, it would look like she was not a good mum and if there was a male in the picture “you know what they would say....it made me scared and I listened to him unfortunately”. M accepted when it was put to her by Miss Pryor that she had lied to the police officers on the 17th and the 21st March 2025, that she had lied to the medics when she did not tell them about the involvement of CW with the children and that she had lied to the social worker. M also accepted that during her third interview with the police she also lied when she told them that she had left the children with CW on approximately five occasions. M also accepted that in her five witness statements she does not admit that CW was more or less living with her. M informed me that she should have taken B to see a clinician prior to the 14th March 2025 in light of him falling over and not responding to pain. M said that CW had told her that if she took B to the doctors they would question her and say it was her fault and that “would scare me”. M said that at the time she loved CW and that she was desperate to have a family which involved the presence of both a mother and father.[58]In cross M said that she had lost her phone between the 20th and the 27th March 2025. Miss Pryor put to M that when the phone was examined by Evidence Matters they could not find any communications between M and CW. M initially said that she could not remember deleting these communications from her phone but when pressed she accepted that she must have done so and that she had done so because she had lied to the police that she was not in a relationship with CW. M told me that she was worried that social services would remove her children because of what she had read online. M also said that CW was telling her the same sort of things.[59]CW’s relationship with the boys. M informed Miss Pryor that CW had a good relationship with her sons. M said that it was CW who disciplined the children by making them have time out or removing their ipads. M described herself as a “soft touch”. M said that she had not seen CW smack the children.[60]M told me that the boys were not scared of CW, but they would be upset when he told them off. M said that CW would often raise his voice to the boys, and he would swear but not directly at the boys he would say things like “stop fucking doing that”. M said that CW had not lost his temper with the children, but he had with her. M described CW as being “dominant with me he knew I had anxiety….he would threaten to leave me and pack his bags…..sometimes this was in front of the children….the children got on well with him….I felt he was the parent over me”. M informed Miss Cox that she did not like it when CW shouted at her, but it didn’t scare her but “I didn’t see it directed towards the children”. M informed Mr Braithwaite that her relationship with CW “was toxic…..I agree it exposed the children to harm…the children deserved to be around better”. M also told Mr Braithwaite that there was only one occasion in December 2024 that CW misbehaved to the extent that she was fearful of him. M said that despite this incident she allowed CW to care for the children adding “I didn’t think that he would harm the children ….I should have done better I should have known”.[61]M not taking B to see a medic until the 14th March 2025. M said that she was “scared of social services because of the bad reputation that they have on line”. Mr Braitwaite took M to the witness statement of CW where he says that he told M that B needed to be checked out as he would walk more to the left and M said that she did not want to take B to the doctors, as she did not want social services to be involved. M replied that both her and CW were worried about social services being involved.[62]Cannabis use. Mr Wauchope put to his client that her most recent HST revealed high use of cannabis. M accepted this and said that she smoked cannabis mostly at night to help her sleep, that she stopped whilst in the residential placement and that she recommenced smoking cannabis when she returned to her home which she says was upsetting as the children were no longer present. M said that she had stopped using cannabis 6 weeks ago and that she had referred herself to Forward Trust. M agreed with Mr Braithwaite that during this period cannabis played a large part in her life and that she was preoccupied with CW and that those two factors may explain why she did not notice the pain that B was in following him sustaining the fractures.[63]Fractures. Miss Pryor put to M that in her witness statements she does not describe B falling onto his outstretched hand. M replied, “no I have not seen that”. M informed Mr Braithwaite that she didn’t notice the exquisite pain that would have been experienced by B immediately post the fractures and nor did she notice the period thereafter where Dr Rose described B likely having discomfort when being dressed and undressed. M said that “he didn’t show signs of pain…I am worried that I missed that”.[64]M’s response to the matters raised in CW’s witness statement. M admitted that she had in the past taken the pushchair when shopping so that she could shop lift.[65]Witness statement of CW’s ex partner CT. This witness statement is dated the 30th June 2025. CT says that she agreed for CW mother to have their son, who at the time was 8 months old for an overnight stay. CT says that when “R was returned to my care, he had a bruise that covered the whole of one side of his face/ear which looked much like an hand print and smaller ones on his head. As well as a small bruise on the other side of his face near his eye and multiple bruises on the same side on his head. I was told that R. had “fallen onto his toys” for the reason for the bruises/injuries he sustained”, (305). CT claims that she reported this to “medical professionals when my son was seen at hospital and to social services but to my knowledge, no charges were ever pursued by police”. CT says that she believes that CW assaulted R.

The evidence of CW

[66]The evidence of CW Witness statement dated 25th November 2025. CW has provided a witness statement dated the 25th November 2025 in which he denies the allegations made by CT. CW says that he thinks that M “has managed to manipulate CT into providing such a statement to use for her advantage as she was aware of the incident that happened”, (361). CW says that he was never left alone with the children because M would like to take the children with her particularly if she was going shopping “as she would use the pushchair to conceal the items that she was stealing”, (362).In paragraph 12 CW repeats his claim that he had not “been in the vicinity unsupervised with these children”.[67]On page 363 CW says that he had witnessed B “purposely fall on the floor and hit his head, walk into the wall and into the door frame” and that he told M that B should be checked out as he would walk more to his left “but she would respond stating that she would not take him to the doctors, as she did not want social services to become involved”. CW claims that when B had a black eye M refused to seek medical attention and instead applied creams and that he took photographs of these occurrences to send to his mother to seek her advice. CW says that he recalls doing this when B “would constantly flick and scratch at his ear which looked like it would have caused him discomfort” and that he asked his mother whether she thought there was something wrong with him “because it looked like he was attempting to hurt himself but would not cry at any of these occasions”, (363).[68]Annexed to his statement CW has provided “character references”. One is an email from a Ms R who describes herself as CW’s aunt, (367). Ms R describes CW as kind and loving and that he has helped her decorate her home and taken his cousin out shopping. The second reference is from a Ms B dated the 22nd May 2025, (368). Ms B says that “prior to being stopped from seeing him, CW would have his son here”. Ms B says that she was aware of CW asking for advice from CW mother and herself “as to who to see (Dr or hospital) as there were concerns for his, at the time partner, M's son who had nasty bruises appear and was having to pain reaction to them”. Ms B then says this:
“On Wednesday 21st May 2025 I was contacted via Facebook by an account under the name of [M] which contained the following: “If you still have CW living with you and your daughter I suggest you ask him to leave I have informed the police of your name and that you have a child under 18 living with you while you a low CW to stay there and you know he is on bail and not allowed around under 18s. You know what he done to R and my B and still keep him around your daughter. Shame on you”
Ms B says that “I have numerous issues not only with this message but the numerous false and slanderous statements. Prior to this unsolicited message, I had only ever briefly said hello to M while she was on a call to CW”.[69]On page 369 Ms B says this: “I was aware of violence from both parties in a previous relationship and therefore if the accusation was that CW had assaulted M, I would believe this, CW has a volatile anger which I have seen him bring under control over the years and I myself have had heated arguments with him however I have never nor would I ever see CW harm any child. I am by no means blind to CW's flaws, however I completely trust him to not only look after my daughter but to protect her from harm. I look forward to this matter coming to an end and my daughter getting her "brother” and “best friend” back with the ridiculous need to be supervised for the bail conditions”.[70]CW’s oral evidence. CW’s mental health In chief CW said that he has been diagnosed as suffering from ADHD, (when six years old), autism and severe depression and anxiety. CW said that he hardly gets any sleep and is on the “verge of suicide and I have no motivation for anything”. CW said that he currently takes medication.[71]Messages. CW denied that he had been sending messages to M after they separated in March 2025. CW said that one of the accounts was an old account of his which he could not access.[72]R. CW said that his son R was injured when in the care of his mother and that he had been playing with some toys and he fell on the toys and sustained a red mark to his face adding “my mum accepted responsibility for that”.[73]Discussion with M as to what to tell social services. CW said that he did not have a positive image of social services and that he and M discussed what they had seen on the internet in terms of social services and the situation that he had found himself in with R.[74]Relationship with M. CW said that he and M would have verbal arguments and that they would both swear at each other. CW was shown a video taken by M on the 13th December 2024 which showed her broken cupboard door. CW denied breaking the cupboard door. CW accepts that he returned and was banging on the door. CW accepted that he had a temper that he had shouted at M, and had made H cry when he was shouting. CW said that “sometimes when I lose my temper ...I lose my mind how loud I am...my mind goes blank basically”. CW denied ever losing his temper with the boys and denied hitting B or pinching his ear or grabbing his leg. Miss Pryor took CW to a message that M had sent on the 11th February 2025, (266 EM) in which she says amongst other things “you kicked right off in front the boys made H cry and scared me...what about all the money iv spent on shit for us? Did you ever give me a tenner? Ive got a tenner to my name as had to pay x for the 3.5 we got last week but who cares when its me that pays it tho ay only matters when you spend money. Look at all the things iv gotten you socks. Linx food head phone speakers what you ever gotten me?” CW said that he and M would argue maybe 2 to 3 times per week. Miss Pryor took CW to the reference that he supplied from Ms B which described him as having a volatile anger, (369). CW said that he agreed with that assessment of him. CW said that he had “not fully learnt to get a grip of my anger”.[75]13th December 2024 CW was shown the video taken by M of the broken cupboard door. In cross CW denied that he had broken the door. When Miss Pryor asked CW how the door came to be off its hinges as shown in the video CW replied, “ I don’t know”. When CW was asked if M had damaged the door his response was “could have been”. CW also said that there had not been an occasion in the past when they were arguing that M had caused damage to the flat. When Miss Pryor put to CW that if M had damaged the door on the 13th December 2024 this would have been the first time he replied, “I don’t know”. When Miss Pryor suggested that he became so angry that he didn’t know what he was doing and he kicked the door CW replied, “I know if I am doing something like that....sometimes when I am angry my temper takes over”. CW denied that his temper caused him to harm B.[76]Relationship with the children. CW informed Miss Cox that he would discipline the children by taking away screen time or for them to have time out and when he did so “my voice was deepened but not raised”. CW denied ever hitting the children. CW said that he had not seen M hit the children. CW described M as a good mum. CW told Miss Cox that he had a good relationship with both children and that H would call him “daddy C and that was very moving because at the time I could not see my own son”. In response to questions from Mr Wauchope and myself CW said that B was never difficult, annoying or irritating.[77]CW was taken to page 98 SB in which the police officer noted a video taken by M on the 13th December 2024 in which he can be heard saying “I hope, I scared your kid”. When the video was played in court CW accepted that he did say those words and was unable to provide an explanation as to why he did so. I took CW to his message sent on the 23rd January 2025 in which he says “least ya kids be happier now I’m gone can all be happier without me”. CW told me that he had sent this because he felt that he was a burden “for both her and the kids...I thought there would be more focus on the kids....it wasn’t because the kids didn’t like me they loved me”.[78]Presence in M’s home/time spent with the children. CW informed Miss Cox that between January and March of 2025 he would stay at M’s house 3 or 4 times most weeks. CW told Miss Cox that he would be alone with B during the school run and when M went shopping and that he would be with him for 30 minutes to 1 ½ hours depending on whether M had gone shopping. CW told Miss Cox that he didn’t bathe the children but he did help with the dressing and that he provided them with food and helped put them to bed. In cross CW said that he did not bathe B because “I didn’t’ feel comfortable bathing him”. CW informed Miss Pryor that he only changed B’s top when M was not present. CW informed Miss Pryor that he did not see the fall on the 13th March 2025.[79]CW informed Mr Braithwaite that the first time that he was aware that there were concerns that B had been injured non accidentally was when he had the interview with the police. Mr Braithwaite put to CW that he must have known prior to that as M was interviewed by the police on the 17th March 2025. CW replied, “I didn’t know that she didn’t tell me that she had been arrested for GBH concerning the bruises”. CW told me that on the 13th March he was in the bedroom and M was in the living room and M shouted to him that B had fallen over “at first there were no signs of red mark and bruising he wasn’t crying”.[80]The bruises. CW said that he only saw the bruise to B’s left torso, (1092) when he was shown the photographs of the bruising. CW said that he saw the bruises to B’s thigh, (1093) before M took B to see the GP adding “it could have been the same day or before”. CW said that when he saw the thigh bruising it looked the same as that revealed by the photograph. CW said that he thought that thigh bruises were just “regular bruises”. In terms of the left ear CW informed Miss Pryor that he had seen that the day before M took B to see the doctors. CW says that “I was either sitting in the living room or bedroom on my x box and B was playing with his toys in his bedroom ....and I saw it myself......M asked me to look at his ear because she was concerned about the bruising....I said that you should take him to have that checked out.....I asked my mother as I had not seen anything like that.....and she said that he should go to the doctors ....it was one of the worse marks that she had seen ....she had not seen bruising to his ears like that”. CW said that B could have sustained the ear bruise by “falling over or hitting his head on the bookcase”. When it was put to CW that M had said that she had made the appointment to see the GP without telling him he replied, “that is not true”. CW told Miss Pryor that he had not seen the bruise to the right ear.[81]The fractures. CW told Miss Pryor that he had sometimes seen B fall with his arms outstretched but he was unable to remember when he had witnessed this. CW said he was told about the fractures by the police and “I was so shocked I would not have been able to tell that he had a fracture”. Miss Pryor took CW to a message that he had sent to M on the 3rd February 2025 where he said, “I’d probably say ignore B when ya come back lol he’s gonna cry I reckon when her hears ya,” (260 EM) and a message that he had sent on the 11th March 2025 where he says “gonna cry when ur back of course tho”, (334 EM). CW denied that he had sent these messages because he had hurt B.[82]B falling over/hitting objects. CW told Miss Cox that B would “fall on his bum or walk or run around and bump into walls or door frames and not take any notice of this ....it happened daily” and that when this happened B showed “no emotion he would just smile he showed no sign of being hurt”. Miss Cox reminded CW that Dr Rose had opined that immediately following the fractures B would have experienced significant pain. CW said that B did not give any indication that he was in pain. CW said that “when I was told about the fractures I was very shocked because B used both his arms normally and there was no signs of discomfort when he was getting changed”.[83]Reporting injuries to his mother. CW told Miss Cox that when he was a child he was very accident prone so “so I asked my own mother to see if I should take him to the doctors”. CW informed Mr Braithwaite that it was true that he would send photographs of any injuries and send them to his mother, (363). CW said that he was doing that throughout 2024 and 2025.[84]The agreement to not tell the truth. CW informed Miss Pryor that he and M agreed that they would lie to professionals and tell them that during the period December to March 2025 “I was not there that much and that I did less with the kids”. CW says that this was a mutual agreement. When asked why they had agreed to lie CW replied, “I don’t know”. CW said that he was not seeing R in March 2025 and that he had not seen him because “I did not get on with his mother....we always had arguments....she didn’t believe that I had much to offer and she decided to stop me seeing R”. CW said that social services did not stop him from seeing R and they “came up with an agreement to for me to see R...they were helping me see R”. CW said that after the issue with the bruise to R social services were happy for him to have contact with R. Miss Pryor put to CW that if social services had helped him to have contact with R there was no reason for him to be generally distrustful of social services. CW said that social services only helped him when the child protection plan was put in place CW then became emotional and said “it’s not just R I used to get beat up by my F, when I got older I promised that if I had a son I would not do the same thing that happened to me”.[85]CW told Mr Braithwaite that he thought that he and M had the conversations about not telling the truth after B was seen by the GP and during the time that B was in hospital. CW says that he could remember the conversation, but he could not recall when it had taken place.[86]CW’s arrest. There is a video of CW being approached by the police whilst leaving M’s home in which CW refuses to give the police officer his name and denied that he was CW. In cross CW said that he would never give his name to a police officer because he knew his rights.[87]Lies told to the police. In chief CW said that “I was not wholly honest during the police interview because of the shock of the allegations, I didn’t think that I would ever be accused of that”. During the course of cross examination CW accepted that he had lied to the police during his interview and lied in his witness statement when he essentially asserted that he did not spend any significant amount of time caring for the boys. I have set out below the various admitted lies made by CW. i. CW told the police that he had only been to M’s home on two occasions during the period December 2024 to March 2025. ii. CW accepted that he had lied to the police when he had said that the last time he had seen M and the boys was a month previously. iii. CW accepted that he had lied when he told the police officer that he did not have much of a relationship with the children, (1573 & 1583). iv. CW accepted that he had lied to the police when he said that he had only met the children a few times. v. On page 1580 of his police interview CW said that he had “interactions with them a few times…..they get up for a wee in the night and then they go “who’s this random guy? and get scared”. CW accepted that this was a lie. vi. CW initially did not accept Miss Pryor’s suggestion that he had been present in the home between the 11th and 15th March 2025. When Miss Pryor took CW to various phone messages CW readily accepted that he was present at M’s home during this period. CW accepted that on the 11th and 13th March he was alone with B in the home. vii. CW accepted that he was present in the home during the time that M was at the hospital with B. viii. CW accepted that when he told the police officer that he did not get involved with childcare, (1593) that was another lie and that he was involved in caring for the children. ix. On page 1580 CW said that he did not discipline the children that it was not his place to do so and he left that to M. CW in cross accepted that this was untrue. x. On page 1587 CW told the police officer that he “never used to see B fall”. CW accepted that this was not true. xi. The police officer on page 1591 asked CW if he had ever noticed any injuries or marks on B to which CW replied, “no”. CW accepted in cross that this was a lie. xii. CW accepted that he had lied to the police when he asserted that M had not made any complaints about B having any injuries or bruises, (1591). xiii. On page 1593 CW was asked by the police officer if M had told him why B was in hospital to which he replied, “no....she said to me that she took him to see a doctor in Sittingbourne......she didn’t tell me why”. CW admitted in cross that this was a false assertion. xiv. When asked by the police officer how B may have sustained the bruising CW said that he had “no idea”. CW accepted that was untrue because “some of the bruises I had seen some I had not seen”. xv. In paragraph 12 of his witness statement CW says that “I do not believe I should be part of these proceedings because I have not sustained any injuries or have been in the vicinity with these children”, (363). CW accepted that he had lied when he said that he had not been in the vicinity of the children. CW was unable to offer an explanation as to why he asserted that he should not be involved in these proceedings because he had not sustained any injuries. When Miss Pryor asked CW why he would lie in this statement of November 2025 some 8 months post these events CW replied, “I don’t know why I wrote it”. CW mother LJ.[88]LJ has provided a witness statement dated the 12th February 2026, (387). LJ said that she had witnessed M swinging the boys around by their hands but this was not violent and was just in play. LJ also avers that she “witnessed B purposely” walk into the television and smashing his head against it and another occasion where she saw him walk into a door frame, hitting his head which “made him fall onto the floor, but then he just got up and went about his day without a cry or a reaction”. LJ said that her son could come across as quite loud but she did not believe that he would hurt a child.[89]LJ’s oral evidence. LJ said that her son had sent her photographs of B when he had a rash and a black eye. LJ informed me that she did not believe that her son would have inflicted the injuries on B. LJ said that CW had been brought up around children and that she had not seen him lose his temper with a child. LJ said that she sees R every other weekend and that CW is not allowed to see him and that “I abide by that rule”. LJ said that she did take responsibility for the bruise on R and that CW was not even in the room. In respect of the statement given by R’s mother LJ said that she had told her that she felt that she had been pushed into making the statement that she hates CW but that she also did not believe that CW would hurt a child.[90]Playgroup. On page 288 there is a note from H’s playgroup dated the 22nd November 2024 which reads; “ H was talking on the play phone, I asked him who he was talking to and he said “daddy” he then said “suck him in the eyebrow” H began talking on the phone again to his daddy and he was shouting, I asked H why he was shouting and he said “his a little dickhead” he then said “he came to play with me and he stole mummies money” H then said “ I need to call my mum he put the phone to his ear and said “mum I rang dad and told him to suck his eyebrow”.[91]Social worker SR’s witness statement dated 21st March 2026. SR notes that the out of hours social worker Mr H visited M’s home on the 14th March 2025 and that M had told him that she had taken B to the GP as she was worried about an undiagnosed condition, (240). On the 15th March 2025 SR noted that the consultant agreed that M could take B and H home to get nappies and to freshen up and that around 16.40 B and M returned to the hospital for a planned CT, (241). On the 16th March 2025 SR noted a telephone conversation that she had with the consultant who said that the tests results were all normal and that they were intending to discharge B. However, M then pointed out a “new bruise to the left ear.....the new bruise is behind the top of the ear and is approximately the size of a 5p with a small graze in the middle. Consultant said that this was definitely not present yesterday when she examined you. She said that M again had no explanation for this and suggested that you are very unsteady on your feet and this is likely the cause”, (241). The note goes on to say that this was an unusual injury in an unusual location and that M became defensive and said that the doctor was accusing her of beating B. On page 242 SR notes that Mr H visited the ward and Dr T said that the video that M had shown her of B rocking his head in the pram would not cause the bruising and that there were concerns that the bruise may have happened when M returned home from hospital on 15th March 2025. SR noted that following the anonymous referral that M was in a relationship with CW M informed the social worker that CW was an ex – partner and that she had not seen him since December 2024, (243).[92]Social worker SR’s statement dated 26th March 2025. SR noted that M said that she ended the relationship with the children’s father, (BF) in 2022 and in July of that year she fled to a refuge. In 2023 M said that BF turned up at her property in 2023 and attempted to break in.[93]Statement from CS of, X Housing dated the 28th May 2025. In January 2025 M was complaining of not having any carpets in the property and the property being cold. CS offered solutions such as fuel voucher’s and advice as to how M could obtain cheap carpets but it was reported that M was not listening to her. On the 17th October 2023 it was noted that M said that she was back in contact with her ex partner BF, and they had agreed to meet in a local park so that the boys could see him, (299). It was also noted that during a period when M was at one of X Housing’s properties the children were always clean and well dressed and were being fed healthy nutritious meals, (300) and “there was no concerns for the children’s safety and welfare”.[94]Social worker HS witness statement of the 23rd September 2025. On the 29th April 2025 the previous allocated social worker visited the children whilst residing with their paternal grandfather and notes this : “Daddy C is a bad man", when I asked why he said "he kicked the door". I asked if he saw this and he said no he was asleep but mummy said she would ring the police. I said that this was not very nice and asked if Daddy C is nice to mummy to which H said "no he hit mummy", I asked if he saw this and he did not answer and said he wanted to play outside”, (346) On the 1st May 2025 the foster carer noted that H had said that CW had “broke the door” and that H was in his room at the time. H also said that he loved CW because he would play with him, (346). On the 4th May 2025 the foster carer recorded H saying that CW hurt M but he didn’t see it he just heard it.[95]On the 3rd July 2025 whilst at the residential placement M smacked H on the top of his leg with an open hand and when she was spoken to by the staff it was recorded that M did not know that it was inappropriate to smack her child, (348).[96]On the 14th August 2025 HS was contacted by Ms D who was conducting a SGO of the MGM. Ms D said that the MGM had told her that she had received a telephone call with M on Wednesday the 12th March “during which she mentioned that they had been there a couple of days and were getting worse”, (350).[97]Kinship assessment of the MGM and MSGF of Miss N dated the 20th March 2025. The MGM informed Ms N that she believes that her daughter last had contact with BF in October 2024 when she agreed for him to have contact with the boys and during this time it is said that BF stole £80 from M, (566).[98]The assessment of M by the residential placement. Interim In her interim report of the 13th August 2025 a Ms M records a conversation between herself and the health visitor which took place on the 23rd July 2025 in which it was observed that B was “observed to walk into furniture and become accidently injured often”, (675). On the same page M admitted that she experienced difficulties caring for the boys as a single parent. Ms M also noted that there had been no repetition of M smacking the children following this been witnessed on the 3rd July 2025. Ms M says that there was no mark left on H following M smacking him and that H did not react to M smacking and shouting at him “this may indicate an element of normalisation whereby this may have been M’s usual method of disciplining her child”, ( 679). Ms M says that she spoke to M about the smacking incident and M had said “I didn’t know I cannot do that” which speculated Ms M may indicate that M was using physical chastisement over a period of time. Ms M also noted that whilst the boys are very active M has “demonstrated an ability to recognise the importance of appropriately supervising H and B”, (678). H informed Ms M that whilst he was in his bedroom and M and CW were in another room he heard his M say “ow”. H also said that there were “loads of things” that CW did to make him sad and angry but he did not elaborate.[99]Final report 2nd December 2025. On page 733 and 734 Ms M offers the following views• “M recognised that B had experienced physical harm due to what likely has been caused by another individual. M understood that her contribution to the harm was due to her relationship choices and her inability to ensure that her children were not exposed to risky individuals. M recognised that her ability to protect H and B from physical harm and exposure to domestic abuse was limited previously, due to her own difficulties with forming healthy relationships”.• “M acknowledged that she had exposed her children to others who may have caused them harm. By allowing another person to care for B unsupervised, when M had a full understanding that they were an abusive individual towards her, M increased the risk to her children. M had ultimately allowed a male into her home and to care for her child, early into the relationship. M acknowledged that she had failed to protect her children in these instances and has demonstrated motivation to make changes to ensure that they are protected moving forward”.[100]Ms M says that during the latter period of the assessment M had not required or sought support from the centre’s staff and that there had been “no concerns about her ability to meet all of her children’s needs”, (734). Ms M also opined that the concerns had reduced as to M’s self-esteem and ability to recognise unhealthy individuals, and that the centre was confident that M could put into practice with future relationships the knowledge and awareness that she had obtained, (734). It was noted that M had nearly completed the Freedom Programme and the Solihull Parenting Course, (736). Ms M noted that M denied that there was any physical abuse in the relationship between her and CW but that the children would have heard the verbal abuse from their bedrooms and seen the aftermath of CW damaging the door, (741). Ms M noted that M acknowledged her difficulties in forming and maintaining healthy relationships and particularly her expressed need for love and affection from others to feel a sense of self – worth. Ms M opined that this “insight is significant, as it suggests a pattern of seeking validation through relationships, which has previously impacted her ability to act as a protective factor for her children”. Ms M noted that this pattern had reduced but “this was a temporary reduction in risk rather than a resolved concern”. On page 766 Ms M says this:
“Increased stress and emotional vulnerability in a less supported environment may heighten M’s susceptibility to entering future relationships that do not prioritise the safety and wellbeing of her children. Although, there is a support network that has been established as being strong and consistent within the wider family, which will likely have a positive impact on M’s ability to continue building her resilience, providing her with access to the support and respite that is a common requirement for most parents, to protect their own wellbeing and promote sustainable parenting”
. Ms M noted that M had the support of her mother, step father, sister and brother who live in close proximity to M and her father and step mother albeit that they live in L (772). On page 773 Ms M noted this: “More importantly, M’s family members all agreed that if they were to identify that M was in an unhealthy relationship again, they would report this to the relevant authorities to ensure the safety of H and B is prioritised over M”.[101]On page 737 Miss Murtagh offers this view:
“It is the Assessor’s opinion, based on observations and M’s insight into the concerns, that M is unlikely to have caused B physical harm directly, however, has likely previously failed to protect B from another individual causing this”
. Ms M noted that B has often been observed as being clumsy and can fall into walls, doors and tables, (739) and that sometimes B would cry and sometimes “he will seem unfazed and continue with what he was doing beforehand”, (740).[102]M informed Ms M that she had suffered from anxiety for many years and had self harmed whilst a child. M also described how her mental health deteriorated after the birth of B whom she struggled to bond with as he looked like his father, (748). Ms M noted that M’s mental health had improved since being prescribed medication in August 2025, (749). Ms M noted that during her time in placement M’s “mental health has not had a significant impact on her ability to meet H and B’s basic care needs”. Ms M noted that there had been no further incidents of M physically chastising the children and that whilst at times she raises her voice to the children this has noticeably reduced, (750).[103]The guardian’s final analysis dated the 24th July 2026. The guardian in her final analysis did not support the local authority’s care plan and instead recommended that the boys should remain with the MGM and MSGF pursuant to an SGO, (paragraph 75). The guardian noted that the children were thriving in their grandparents care whilst continuing to enjoy meaningful and positive time with their mother. The guardian did not have any concerns as to M’s ability to provide for the children’s day to day needs. However, the guardian noted that the positive parenting assessments of M and the positive observations of her care of the children had all taken place in settings where her contact was “highly structured and supported”, (paragraph 32).[104]It seems to me that there were two reasons why the guardian initially did not support a return of the boys to M’s care even absent any findings made against her. Firstly, the guardian was not satisfied that M had evidenced that she had acquired the necessary insight into the impact on her children of her entering into domestically abusive relationships and secondly, the guardian was concerned as to M’s continued use of cannabis as revealed by her most recent HST.[105]On the issue of domestic abuse, the guardian was concerned that M had concealed her relationship with CW even when concerns were raised that B’s injuries were likely to be non-accidental and that this decision to mislead professionals “raises worries about M’s ability to work openly and honestly with professionals”, (paragraph 26). The guardian accepted that M had begun to develop an understanding of domestic abuse and its impact on her children but she was not satisfied that this work “has yet resulted in meaningful and sustained change”, (paragraph 37). In the same paragraph the guardian offers this view:
“The concerns in this case do not arise from a single relationship or isolated incident but from a pattern of relationships throughout the children's lives that have exposed both M and the children to significant harm. In my view, M is likely to require ongoing, targeted and potentially long-term support to develop a fuller understanding of her vulnerabilities within intimate relationships, her apparent propensity to enter into and remain in abusive relationships, and the factors that have contributed to those dynamics. She will also need support to reflect upon the documented evidence that, at times, the needs of her relationships have been prioritised above the safety and welfare needs of her children with catastrophic consequences for them”
. The guardian also expressed the view that in light of their experiences to date the boys are “likely to require a significant degree of reparative care, nurturing and therapeutic support”, (paragraph 49). The guardian opined that the assessments of M to date did not “sufficiently demonstrate that [M] is able to recognise, understand and protect the children from the risks posed by harmful adult relationships”, (paragraph 55). In paragraphs 63 and 64 the guardian says this: “Given the prevalence of domestic abuse throughout the children's lives, together with the significant emotional, psychological and physical harm they have experienced, it is essential that the Court is provided with a comprehensive assessment of M's ability to recognise risk, respond protectively and sustain safe decision-making in the context of future relationships. Such an assessment would assist in identifying the underlying factors that contribute to her vulnerability and, crucially, would inform the nature and extent of any specialist intervention, support and professional oversight required to safeguard the children moving forward. 64.In my view, without such an assessment, there would remain a significant gap in the Court's understanding of the risks facing H and B. It would be difficult to conclude that sufficient protective measures could be identified to prevent a recurrence of the circumstances that have resulted in these proceedings”.[106]The guardian’s view was that M’s continued use of cannabis “gives rise to concerns regarding her ability to consistently provide safe care and exercise sound judgment on behalf of the children”, (paragraph 56). In the following paragraph the guardian says this:
“A parent's ability to respond appropriately to children's needs, identify risks, remain emotionally available and make safe decisions may be adversely affected by persistent cannabis use, particularly where there is evidence that its use is being relied upon as a coping mechanism for underlying emotional difficulties”
. The guardian opined that M’s active engagement with substance misuse recovery services was a “fundamental component of any rehabilitation plan and an essential safeguard in promoting the children’s long – term safety and welfare”, (paragraph 70).[107]The guardian opined that should the court be minded to return the children to M’s care, (absent any adverse findings made against her), that such a return should not take place immediately and should be subject to a “specialist domestic abuse risk assessment.....accompanied by active engagement with substance misuse services”, (paragraph 73). The guardian also opined that any proposed return would require a robust transition plan with a detailed Supervision Order Support Plan setting out how any identified risks would be managed and mitigated, (paragraph 74). At the time of writing her report the guardian noted that the local authority had not provided a Supervision Order Support Plan “detailing how the identified risks would be managed and mitigated should this care plan be implemented”, (paragraph 51). The guardian opined that the boys had likely suffered significant emotional harm as a consequence of being exposed to M’s domestically abusive relationships with their father and then CW. The guardian’s view was that the boys would remain vulnerable to further significant harm absent the safeguards that she had recommended.[108]The supervision support plan. The supervision support plan of the 7th July 2026 provides that the family will be subject to a child in need plan with meetings planned every six weeks, (1086). M is to sign a working together agreement which outlines the expectations of her and the use of her support network. The plan outlines the provision of further parenting courses and engagement with therapy and support to address her mental health difficulties, substance misuse and propensity to enter into domestically abuse relationships.[109]The Law. The court can only make public law orders if the threshold criteria in s 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989, (CA) is crossed and the court is satisfied, after conducting a welfare analysis, that a public law order is necessary and proportionate. Threshold.[110]The court cannot make a supervision order unless the local authority can prove on the balance of probabilities that the two conditions, (the significant harm condition and the attributability condition) contained within section 31 (2) are satisfied. The threshold document should set out each of the ‘facts’ that the local authority intends to prove occurred. Each of those facts must then be shown to have caused, or placed the child at risk of suffering, significant harm. A fact that can be proven but cannot also be linked to such harm is of no relevance, Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11. The Significant harm condition[111]There are two limbs to the significant harm condition. The local authority must establish that the child concerned has suffered actual significant harm or is likely to suffer significant harm. The word significant does not amount to a commonplace failure or a feature of human inadequacy it denotes something that is “considerable noteworthy or important” , Humberside County Council v B [1993] 1 FLR 257, ( a definition endorsed by the Supreme court in Re B (Care Proceedings Appeal) [2013] 2 FLR 1075 SC). Section 31 (9) defines harm as including ill treatment, (including sexual abuse and non physical ill treatment), or the impairment of health, (physical or mental health) and the impairment of development, (which includes physical, emotional, intellectual, social and behavioural development). The impairment of health and development includes seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another.[112]In S – B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] UKSC 17Baroness Hale in paragraph 8 said this: “The leading case on the interpretation of these conditions is the decision of the House of Lords in Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563. Three propositions were established which have not been questioned since. First, it is not enough that the court suspects that a child may have suffered significant harm or that there was a real possibility that he did. If the case is based on actual harm, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the child was actually harmed. Second, if the case is based on the likelihood of future harm, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the facts upon which that prediction was based did actually happen. It is not enough that they may have done so or that there was a real possibility that they did. Third, however, if the case is based on the likelihood of future harm, the court does not have to be satisfied that such harm is more likely than not to happen. It is enough that there is "a real possibility, a possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm in the particular case" (per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, at p 585F).[113]In Re K – H (Children) (Care Orders: Proportionality) [2025] EWCA Civ 1368Jackson LJ said this:
“It is therefore unarguably clear that when the court is assessing risk it must act on the basis of proven facts and inferences that can properly be drawn from them. The submission that the assessment of future risk can be based even in part on unproven facts has been repeatedly rejected”
. The approach mandated by the House of Lords and Supreme Court to the assessment of the likelihood of harm at the threshold stage of care proceedings under s.31(2)(a) of the Act also applies to the assessment of risk at the welfare stage under s.1(3)(e), (Re M and R (Child Abuse: Evidence) [1996] EWCA Civ 1317). This approach was approved by the House of Lords in Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKSC 35 The attributability condition.[114]Section 31 (2) requires the harm or likelihood of harm to be attributable to either the parental care provided to the child or the child being beyond parental control. There has to be a causal connection between the harm or likelihood of harm and the care given to the child. As Lord Nicholls said in Lancashire County Council v A (A Child) [2000] 2 All ER 97the care given to the child does not have to be the dominant or direct cause of the harm “a contributory causal connection suffices”.[115]The requirement that the care be “what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give” is an objective test, the care must fall below an objectively acceptable level. In Lancashire County Council v A Lord Nicholls in paragraph 100 said this:
“Thus, the absence of a reasonable standard of parental care need not imply that the parents are at fault. It may be for instance that for reasons beyond their control the parents are not able to provide a reasonable standard of care for the child”
Pool of Perpetrators.[116]The court may find itself able to determine that a child has suffered significant harm but not able to determine which parent/care giver, on the balance of probabilities, inflicted that harm. In Lancashire County Council v A (A Child) [2000] 2 All ER 97Lord Nicholls held that the phrase “care given to the child” is apt to embrace the care given by “any of the carers”.This definition allows the attributability condition to be fulfilled even though the identity of the particular carer who was the perpetrator is not known. In Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348King LJ held that the “proper approach” to uncertain perpetrator cases had been set out by Peter Jackson LJ in Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575. The court should adopt the following three stage approach.a. List the people who had the opportunity to cause the injury.b. Determine if the perpetrator of the injury can on the balance of probabilities be identified.c. If the court cannot identify the perpetrator on the balance of probabilities the court should ask itself “is there a likelihood or real possibility” that one of the individuals on the list inflicted the injury? If yes that individual is placed into the pool.[117]In Re A King LJ held that judges should no longer direct themselves in accordance with the guidance provided by Wall LJ in Re D (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 472in which he held that the court should strive to identify the perpetrator on the balance of probabilities and should seek “but not strain to do so”. King LJ said that the “unvarnished test is clear: following a consideration of all the available evidence and applying the simple balance of probabilities, a judge either can, or cannot, identify a perpetrator. If he or she cannot do so, then, in accordance with Re B (2019), he or she should consider whether there is a real possibility that each individual on the list inflicted the injury in question”.[118]There cannot be a pool finding of one there is no room for a finding of fact on the basis of a real possibility, (Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575). 129. When deciding whether there is a real possibility that an individual inflicted injury and thus should be placed in the pool the court will require as much information about each potential pool member. In Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575Jackson LJ said this: “where there is an imbalance of information about some individuals in comparison to others, particular care may need to be taken to ensure that the imbalance does not distort the assessment of the possibilities”.[119]In Re Y, V and B (Fact Finding: Perpetrator) [2024] EWCA Civ 1034Baker LJ held that once the court identifies that an injury is inflicted the court must identify the perpetrator or a pool of perpetrators. Baker LJ said this in paragraphs 49 and 51. - The judges “failure to make any finding as to the perpetrator of B’s injuries and her decision that the case could safely proceed on the basis of her limited findings in para 72 and 73 were, with great respect wrong in law”. - “The judge was wrong to conclude the fact finding stage in this case, in which a young child has sustained serious non accidental injuries on more than one occasion , without either finding on a balance of probabilities that a named person was the perpetrator or finding that persons, (named or unnamed) were in the pool of perpetrators”.[120]In Lancashire County Council v M and F [2023] EWHC 3097 (Fam)Hayden J said this in paragraph 44: “All of this applies with equal rigour to the obligation upon the judge to identify not only harm that may have been sustained by a child but the likely perpetrator of that harm”.[121]If the court finds that an injury has been inflicted and there are only two people who might be responsible the question for the court is a binary one namely who is likely to have been more responsible, (Re B ( A Child: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2026] EWCA Civ 1024).In paragraph 28 Jackson LJ said this: “Where, as here, an injury has been found to have been inflicted, as opposed to being accidental or of natural origin, and where there are only two people who might be responsible, the question for the court becomes a binary one: which of the two is more likely to have been responsible? If the question can be answered, it follows that the person identified on a balance of probabilities as the more likely of the two to have been responsible is in fact responsible. That is in contrast to a case with more than two possible perpetrators, where the identification of the likeliest perpetrator might not satisfy the balance of probability standard that is necessary for a finding of fact”.[122]A finding that a care giver is in the pool of perpetrators poses difficulties for the court at the welfare stage. The court must be mindful at the welfare stage that the individual “is not a proven perpetrator but a possible perpetrator”, (Lancashire County Council v A (A Child) [2000] 2 All ER 97 ; Re O and N & Re B [2003] UKHL 18and Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575). As Lord Nicholls said in Lancashire “the judge may be faced with a particularly difficult problem. The judge will not know which individual was responsible for inflicting the injuries”.[123]The court must however at the welfare stage weigh in the balance that a parent has possibly inflicted injury upon a child as the court is required to evaluate the risk of harm to the child, (s1 (3) (e) CA. As Lord Wilson said in Re J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9 paragraph 60. “ It is agreed that, when the threshold to the making of a care or supervision order set by section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 (“the Act”) has been crossed and the court proceeds to consider, under section 1(1) of the Act, whether it would serve the welfare of the child to make such an order, the consignment of a proposed carer to a pool of possible perpetrators of harm to that child or to another child must, with whatever degree of difficulty, be weighed in the balance: for it is relevant to the harm which the child is at risk of suffering (section 1(3)(e)) and to the capacity of X to meet his or her needs (section 1(3)(f))”.[124]If the court has made a finding that a parent is a possible perpetrator and has also failed to protect a child the court should not proceed at the welfare stage on the basis of the finding to protect allegation and to leave out of account the finding of possible perpetration. In Re O and N & Re B [2003] UKHL 18Lord Nicholls said this: “Further, when assessing future risk, failure to protect is one matter, perpetration is another. A finding of failure to protect is not a reason for leaving out of account at the welfare stage the undoubted fact that one or other of the parents inflicted the physical harm on the child”.[125]Lord Wilson in paragraph 61 of Re J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9 suggested that a court could adopt the following approach when considering the future risk of harm in cases where the parent has not been proved to have caused the harm but has been placed in the pool of perpetrators for the purposes of establishing threshold.(a) study the circumstances in which X’s possible perpetration of that harm took place;(b) compare them with the circumstances in which, if permitted, X would provide care for the subject child;(c) weigh the significance of any changes in X and in the circumstances surrounding him or her since the time when he or she may have perpetrated the harm;(d) have regard to the age and other characteristics of the subject child; and(e) assess the adequacy of the protective measures which are in place, or could be put in place, by way of mitigation of such risk as X may pose to the subject child”. 132. Burden/standard of proof.[126]The burden of proof rests upon the local authority, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. In Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC Baroness Hale said this:
“the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold under section 31(2) or the welfare considerations in section 1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts”
. Inferences drawn from the evidence.[127]Findings of fact must be based on evidence, which can include inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence. Findings of fact must not be based on suspicion or speculation, (Munby LJ in Re A (A child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12). The inherent probabilities of an event having occurred.[128]The inherent probability or improbability of an event having taken place does not alter the standard of proof which is the balance of probabilities. The court must ask itself is it more likely than not that the event occurred, Jackson J Re BR (Proof of Facts), [2015] EWFC 41, in paragraph 7 (3) said this: “The court takes account of any inherent probability or improbability of an event having occurred as part of a natural process of reasoning. But the fact that an event is a very common one does not lower the standard of probability to which it must be proved. Nor does the fact that an event is very uncommon raise the standard of proof that must be satisfied before it can be said to have occurred. The wide evidential canvas.[129]The court must reach a conclusion in respect of each separate allegation but it must take care not to compartmentalise its analysis. The court must consider the entire canvas of the evidence, and each piece of evidence must be considered in the context of the other evidence, (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558, [2004] 2 FLR 83).[130]When considering the wide canvas of the evidence the following observations of Lord Nicholls’ in Re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] 1 FLR 80 should be kept in mind:
"The range of facts which may properly be taken into account is infinite. Facts including the history of members of the family, the state of relationships within a family, proposed changes within the membership family, parental attitudes, and omissions which might not reasonably have been expected, just as much as actual physical assaults. They include threats, and abnormal behaviour by a child, and unsatisfactory parental responses to complaints or allegations. And facts, which are minor or even trivial if considered in isolation, taken together may suffice to satisfy the court of the likelihood of future harm. The court will attach to all the relevant facts the appropriate weight when coming to an overall conclusion on the crucial issue."
[131]Hayden J in Lancashire County Council v M, F, and J [2023] EWHC 3097 (Fam)said this: [44] … section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 requires the Court to focus not only on the significant harm sustained by the child but on its attributability. Inevitably, within the home environment, there are unlikely to be witnesses. The investigative process must track down ascertainable facts from the broadest canvas available and, where possible, draw such inferences as those facts will support. It is frequently a difficult task, but it is not one that can be shirked. The danger in failing to confront it is that an innocent individual may be tainted by a finding that has a direct impact, both on her and on the child. A finding which leaves a parent in a pool of perpetrators is likely to adversely influence the nature and extent of the contact arrangements or indeed, on where and with whom the child will live in the future. Of course, the imperative of child protection must not generate a reason to burden unsatisfactory evidence with a greater weight than it can legitimately support. That would create an injustice to all, not least the subject children, but neither does it absolve the Judge of the responsibility to confront the findings that the evidence properly establishes. The same obligation for forensic rigour applies to the lawyers.[132]Reviewing the broadest canvas of evidence before it does not mean that the court requires all conceivable evidence or “perfect” evidence to make a finding. Baker LJ in J, P, and Q (Care Proceedings)[2024] EWCA Civ 22 said: [72] … the fact that at one stage there had been, or might have been, other evidence relevant to the allegations did not prevent the judge proceeding to make findings on the evidence put before her. In almost every case there will be potentially relevant evidence that for one reason or another is not adduced at the hearing. One other example in this case was that neither J nor Y gave oral evidence. Had they done so, it is possible that the judge may have reached a different conclusion on J’s allegations. The fact that material evidence is “missing” does not preclude a judge reaching a decision on the basis of what is available. Mr Twomey is, of course, right to say that the judge has to consider the wider canvas. There may, of course, be cases where the available evidence is so thin – where substantial parts of the canvas are empty or obscure – that, applying the burden and standard of proof, a finding cannot fairly or properly be made. But that was plainly not the case here. Expert evidence[133]The following propositions of law can be gleaned from the authorities:-• The medical evidence must be considered within the context of all of the other evidence, (A Local Authority v(1) A Mother(2) A Father(3) L & M (Children, by their Children’s Guardian) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)). In Re D ( A Child) (Fact – Finding Appeal), [2019] EWCA Civ 2302Baker LJ in paragraph 66 put it in these terms:
“Where there are various possible causes of an injury, medical evidence considered in isolation may suggest that the injury was inflicted. But if the other evidence demonstrates that it is improbable that any person could have inflicted the injury, the assessment of the totality of the evidence may lead to the conclusion that, on a balance of probabilities, the injury was not inflicted”. • It is the court that is in a position to weigh up the expert evidence against its findings on other evidence, “it is the judge who makes the final decision”, (A Local Authority v (1) A Mother (2) A Father (3) L & M (Children, by their Children’s Guardian) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)). • “The evidence of the parents is of the utmost importance and the court must form a clear view of their reliability and credibility”, (Jackson J Re BR (Proof of Facts), [2015] EWFC 41). • The medical evidence does not take precedence over the other evidence. In Re R (Children: Findings of Fact) [2024] EWCA Civ 153 at paragraph 34 the court of appeal said this: “It is wrong to describe the medical evidence as the canvas against which the other evidence was to be considered. Medical and non – medical evidence are both vital contributors in their own ways to these decisions and neither of them has precedence over the other”
. If the expert evidence is strong and on its own establishes on the balance of probabilities the timing of an injury the evidence of the parents must be compelling to displace the “weighty expert evidence that was available to the court”, (Re O (Children: Fact Finding) [2025] EWCA Civ 479Jackson LJ paragraph 64). • The court has to factor into account a consideration as to whether the medical cause is as yet unknown. Mr

Justice Peter Jackson (as he then was) said this in Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC41:

“where there is a genuine dispute about the origin of a medical finding, the court should not assume that it is always possible to know the answer. It should give due consideration to the possibility that the cause is unknown or that the doctors have missed something or that the medical finding is the result of a condition that has not yet been discovered. These possibilities must be held in mind to whatever extent is appropriate in the individual case”
. However, there must be some evidential basis for the court to conclude that the cause of the injury is yet unknown to medical science. In Re O (Children: Fact Finding) [2025] EWCA Civ 479 the court of appeal was critical of a first instance judge who had held that “scientific research may provide an explanation for these medical results”. Jackson LJ held that this finding had no basis in the evidence that he had heard. The experts did not say that more research was needed, and no one else had suggested that it was. In paragraph 54 Jackson LJ held that if the judge “was going to reject the medical opinion, it was incumbent on him to identify its limits or flaws”. • The court can accept the view of the medical experts whilst at the same time come to a different conclusion. Charles J in A Local Authority v K, D and L [2005] EWHC 144 (Fam), reached a conclusion as to the cause of death and injury that differed from that of the medical experts. Charles J said this: “In doing so I do not have to reject the reasoning of the medical experts, rather I can accept it but on the basis of the totality of the evidence, my findings thereon and reasoning reach a different overall conclusion." • The court does not proceed by simply accepting expert opinion at face value. InLoveday v Renton [1990] 1 Med LR 117 at 125 Stuart-Smith LJ observed as follows with respect to the court’s task when evaluating expert evidence: “In reaching my decision a number of processes have to be undertaken. The mere expression of opinion or belief by a witness, however eminent, that the vaccine can or cannot cause brain damage, does not suffice. The court has to evaluate the witness and soundness of his opinion. Most importantly this involves an examination of the reasons given for his opinions and the extent to which they are supported by the evidence. The judge also has to decide what weight to attach to a witness's opinion by examining the internal consistency and logic of his evidence; his precision and accuracy of thought as demonstrated by his answers; how he responds to searching and informed cross-examination and in particular the extent to which a witness faces up to and accepts the logic and proposition put in cross-examination or is prepared to concede points that are seen to be correct; the extent to which a witness has conceived an opinion and is reluctant to re-examine it in light of later evidence, or demonstrates a flexibility of mind which may involve changing or modifying opinions previously held; whether or not a witness is biased or lacks independence. The distinction between finding an allegation not proven or finding it false.[134]If the court finds an allegation not proven it does not follow that the allegation is false unless the court makes a specific finding that the facts did not happen. The court may consider that at the welfare stage it may be helpful to make a finding that a particular matter was not proved because the court was satisfied that as a matter of fact it did not happen. This differs from a finding that a fact was not proved and “therefore in law is deemed not to have happened, because the party making the assertion failed to establish it to the relevant standard of proof”, (Re A (A Child)(No 2)[2011] EWCA Civ 12). Whether the court can make findings that are not pleaded/put to awitness.[135]The court can make findings of fact that have not been sought by the local authority. In Re G and B (Fact-Finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 10; Wall LJ said this in paragraph 15 :
“a judge … is not required slavishly to adhere to a schedule of proposed findings placed before her by a local authority”
. Wall LJ held that it would be “absurd” for the court to ignore new issues that emerge in the oral evidence.[136]If the court seeks to make findings of fact that have not been sought by the local authority it must be satisfied of two things. Firstly, that the additional findings are “securely founded in the evidence” and secondly that “the fairness of the fact finding process is not compromised”, (Re G and B (Fact-Finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 10). An elementary feature of a fair hearing is that an adverse finding cannot be made against a party unless three conditions have been satisfied. The party must have knowledge of the allegation, they must know the substance of the evidence supporting the allegation and they must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegation, (Newey LJ in Re B (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2127). Baker LJ in In Re A, B and C (Fact-Finding: Gonorrhoea) [2023] EWCA Civ 437, put it in these terms:
“It is axiomatic that a party against whom findings are sought in care proceedings is entitled to notice of the findings sought, the evidence on which they are based, and a fair opportunity to rebut them.”
Failure to put evidence to a witness in cross examination.[137]It is essential that the court distinguishes between a new allegation that it is considering making which was not put to a party as opposed to a scenario where evidence in support of a pleaded allegation had not been put to that party. In the latter case it is not necessary to put to a witness in cross examination every piece of evidence in support of an allegation, (Chen v Ng [2017] UKPC 27) and Re W (Appeal: Fact Finding) [2024] EWCA Civ 1590). Hearsay evidence.[138]Hearsay evidence is admissible in family proceedings, (Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993. The issue for the court is the weight that it should attach to hearsay evidence, (Re W (Fact Finding: Hearsay Evidence) [2014] 2 FLR 703).The court must treat hearsay evidence anxiously and consider carefully the extent to which it can properly be relied upon, (R v B County Council ex parte P [1991] 1 WLR 221). Assessing witnesses based upon their demeanour when giving evidence.[139]The general rule is that the court should guard itself against making an assessment as to whether a witness is telling the truth based solely on the way that the witness gives their evidence. If the court attempts to determine whether a witness is telling the truth just by their presentation in the witness box, the court risks making judgments that at best lack any rational basis and at worst reflect conscious or unconscious biases and prejudices, (Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ Macur LJ see also Re J (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 875. Jackson LJ).[140]Instead of relying on an assessment as to whether a witness is telling the truth based upon their presentation when giving evidence the court should consider “the consistency of the account with known facts, with previous accounts given by the witness, with other evidence, and with the overall probabilities”, (Re B-M (Children: Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371, (Jackson LJ). A Lucas direction.[141]The court’s approach to apparent lies made by a party in fact finding hearings derive from the criminal case of R v Lucas (R) [1981] QB 720. The application of that direction in family proceedings has been considered by the court of appeal in Re H – C (Children), [2016] EWCA Civ 136, Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451and Re H (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator: Lies) [2024] EWCA Civ 1261.[142]The court must be careful to bear in mind that witnesses lie for many reasons such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything. The court does not need to ignore a lie unless the only explanation for the lie was guilt. The court is entitled to take account of any lies told in its overall survey of the evidence (Re H).[143]Even if the court concludes that a witness has lied on a material issue and that the only explanation for the lie is guilt the lie in of itself is not direct proof of culpability the lie can only support other evidence that points towards culpability, (Re H – C). In R v Lucas Lord Lane CJ held that “To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family. Fourthly the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness.”[144]151. The evidence of the parents. In B and G [2026] EWCA Civ 860Baker LJ said this in paragraph 91:
“In this case, an assessment of the parents’ evidence, their credibility and reliability ought to have been a central feature of the judge’s reasoning. As has been stated on many occasions (see for example Devon County Council v EB & Ors (Minors) [2013] EWHC 968 (Fam), paragraph 59), the evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance and it is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. In this case, it was a key aspect of the evidence about the cause of the injuries and, if they were inflicted, the identity of the perpetrator”
. In this case the first instance judge failed to analyse her impression of the parents or if either parent had lied or told the truth. Risk and protective factors.[145]In Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC41 Jackson J, (as he was) set out a list of risk factors and protective factors that may be relevant when considering whether a child has been the victim of a non – accidental injury. Jackson J made it clear that these factors are no more than a “a helpful framework within which the evidence can be assessed and the facts established.” He also made it clear that the presence or absence of a “particular factor proves nothing” as each case turns on its own facts and “children can of course be well cared for in disadvantaged homes and abused in otherwise fortunate ones”.[146]• . The risk factors: physical or mental disability in children that may increase caregiver burden, social isolation of families, parents' lack of understanding of children's needs and child development, parents' history of domestic abuse, history of physical or sexual abuse (as a child), past physical or sexual abuse of a child, poverty and other socioeconomic disadvantage, family disorganisation, dissolution, and violence, including intimate partner violence, lack of family cohesion, substance abuse in family, parental immaturity, single or non-biological parents, poor parent-child relationships and negative interactions, parental thoughts and emotions supporting maltreatment behaviours, parental stress and distress, including depression or other mental health conditions and community violence.• . The protective factors: A supportive family environment, nurturing parenting skills, stable family relationships, household rules and monitoring of the child, adequate parental finances, adequate housing, access to health care and social services, caring adults who can serve as role models or mentors and community support. When considering the risk factors the court should distinguish between those risk factors that have been proven and those that have not. Unproven risk factors should be approached with considerable caution, (MacDonald J Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27). In D and A (Fact finding: Research literature) 2024 EWCA Civ 663 Baker LJ was critical of the judge for not considering the many positive factors about the family when determining if the child had been assaulted. Care giver who may have a propensity to cause harm.[147]In Lancashire CC v R [2008] EWHC 2959 Ryder LJ, (as he then was) considered the relevance of a finding of domestic abuse between the parents when seeking to identify the perpetrator of physical harm upon a child. He held that domestic abuse does not of itself demonstrate a propensity of violence towards children. Ryder LJ said this in paragraphs 59 and 60. “59. Such evidence may demonstrate that each parent has been or is capable of being physically aggressive or emotionally abusive to the other. The potential for harm to a child in such circumstances is self evident but in order to ensure that it is considered in every case, Parliament has enacted an amendment to the 1989 Act to provide for the same: by section 31(9) as introduced by section 120Adoption and Children Act 2002 ‘harm’ explicitly includes impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another: in colloquial terms, domestic abuse. 60. However, despite the above, what such incidents do not of themselves demonstrate is that either parent has the propensity to violence towards small children. A clear distinction is to be drawn between the relevance and admissibility of evidence which describes the harmful circumstances in which a child is being cared for and the same evidence when it is used to suggest that a person has a propensity to commit a particular act. In other words, the evidence will be very relevant to harm or its likelihood in section 31(2) and the court’s assessment of risk in section 1(3)(e) of the 1989 Act but not necessarily to perpetration. It may be forensically unwise for the court to attach much, if any, weight to this evidence if it is directed only to the question of propensity. This accords with the obiter dicta of Wall J. in Re CB and JB (Care Proceedings: Guidelines) [1998] 2 FLR 211 @ 218, where he said: “Evidence of propensity … is unlikely to be of any assistance in resolving a purely factual issue”, (emphasis added) .[148]In Lancashire CC v R & W & N [2013] EWHC 304 (Fam), Mostyn J preferred the evidence of the father who it was alleged had caused a subdural bleed and retinal haemorrhages. The father claimed that whist carrying the baby he had tripped and fallen and that the child had been thrown from his arms and fell to the ground. Mostyn J noted that the father had been convicted of a number of offences but that it “is relevant to observe that his offences relate to adult males”, (paragraph 13). In paragraphs 49 and 50 Mostyn J made these observations: “49. In judging the father's credibility I do not place any weight on his criminal record as being suggestive of a propensity to assault his infant daughter. The crimes in question, while deplorable, are of a totally different character to the one alleged here. By the same token I do not derive any assistance in my task from the two ugly and unpleasant incidents where the father manhandled the mother. Again, this conduct, which is much to be deprecated, is in a class apart from the conduct which is alleged here. “50. If this was a case of abuse then it was a very bad case indeed because it would not only have involved a violent shaking but then the hurling of N, or the bashing of her face, against a hard surface. It would have been an assault in two parts. This takes the theory beyond a momentary loss of self-control into the territory of sheer malignity. I consider this to be unlikely”.[149]In Lancashire County Council v M,F,A & J [2023] EWHC 3097 Hayden J refers to the obiter comments of Wall LJ in Re CB & JB (see above) and noted that Wall LJ had only said that propensity evidence was “unlikely” to be of assistance in resolving a purely factual issue but he did not exclude it. In paragraph 42 Hayden J says this: “Moreover, and with the greatest diffidence and respect for Wall J, the starting point for consideration of the relevance of such evidence should not be hampered or distorted by a presumption that such evidence is “unlikely” to be of assistance. It will depend on the facts of the individual case”.[150]Hayden J underlined the duty on the court to draw on the totality of the evidence, (the wide canvas), when considering whether an individual has on the balance of probabilities caused injury to a child. This wide canvas can include the evidence of propensity to cause harm. Hayden J found the father on the balance of probabilities to have caused harm to a child. In arriving at this view Hayden J noted this in paragraph 61:
“There is here an established pattern of F becoming violent and losing control. This is exacerbated with drug and alcohol consumption, which, as I have stated, the evidence establishes as being used in excess at the relevant time. Also, M and F were living in much more confined circumstances, arising from F’s injury. Both, I note, had identified their respective needs for privacy and space. The changed situation compromised this. I have concluded that F was behaving, as M asserted in her application, violently and personally out of control. I emphasise that all these are ascertainable facts from which reasonable inferences can be drawn. They also establish a propensity for F to lose control, in an extreme way, and to become violent. By contrast, there is no such evidence relating to M’s behaviour. Cumulatively, for the reasons that I have identified throughout this judgment, I consider the evidence points markedly towards F as most likely to have caused Rs fractured fourth posterior rib. On the balance of probabilities, I find that he did”
. Care giver who fails to give an explanation for the injury/provides an unconvincing explanation.[151]The court should take great care before deciding that an obviously unsatisfactory explanation put forward by a parent or a failure to provide any explanation is evidence of culpability. In Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27: MacDonald J said this:
“A blameless person may cast around for all manner of explanations simply as a means of seeking to understand the situation in which they find themselves but in respect of which they have no culpable knowledge. Likewise, the failure by a person to provide any explanation at all may be indicative of culpability where the situation in question would ordinarily admit of one, but it may also be indicative of no more than bare ignorance borne out of innocence”
. Whether a care giver can identify a memorable event.[152]Parents do not have to prove anything they do not have to provide an alternative explanation. Whilst there is no obligation on the parents to provide an explanation for injuries that have been sustained, the court is entitled to weigh the absence of an explanation alongside all of the other evidence in the case. This does not amount to reversing the burden of proof, (Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41). In Re BR Jackson J, (as he was), said this:
“15. It would of course be wrong to apply a hard and fast rule that the carer of a young child who suffers an injury must invariably be able to explain when and how it happened if they are not to be found responsible for it. This would indeed be to reverse the burden of proof. “16. The absence of any history of a memorable event where such a history might be expected in the individual case may be very significant”. “17. In the present case, an adult was undoubtedly in the closest proximity to the baby whenever the injuries occurred and the absence of any account of a pain reaction on the baby’s part on any such occasion was therefore one of the matters requiring careful assessment.”
Multiple allegations.[153]In Re H (Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993Cobb LJ, as he was said this in paragraph 65:
“In a case in which there are multiple allegations, a Judge must always guard against the temptation to approach the evidence on the basis that something must have happened”
. Children are poor historians.[154]In Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child's Evidence) [2006] EWCA Civ 773Hughes LJ said this:
“34. … Painful past experience has taught that the greatest care needs to be taken if the risk of obtaining unreliable evidence is to be minimised. Children are often poor historians. They are likely to view interviewers as authority figures. Many are suggestible. Many more wish to please. They do not express themselves clearly or in adult terms, so that what they say can easily be misinterpreted if the listeners are not scrupulous to avoid jumping to conclusions. They may not have understood what was said or done to them or in their presence”
. If the court is being presented with the evidence of a child who has not been called to give oral evidence the court must when weighing up the child’s evidence remind itself that this evidence was not subject to cross examination, (Re W [2010] I FLR 1485).[155]In A Local Authority and M & SF & O &A [2024] EWFC 35Judd J said this in paragraph 75. “A was surrounded by adults who believed she had been sexually abused and it is hardly surprising that her accounts of SF became more negative and anxious, and that she repeated to teachers that he had hurt, touched and poked her. As Hughes J (as he then was) recognised in the paragraph of Re B cited above, past experience has told us that children in these circumstances can be suggestible, eager to please and poor historians whose words can easily be misinterpreted by adults. Once this has happened the damage is hard to undo”. Failure to protect.[156]An allegation that a parent has failed to protect a child is a threshold finding which the court must determine independently of any finding of perpetration, (King LJ in Re G-L-T (Children), [2019] EWCA Civ 717paragraph 68). The court must be alert to the danger of such a serious finding becoming a bolt on to the central issue of perpetration, (Re L- W [2019] EWCA Civ 159). A finding of a failure to protect may have significant consequences for a parent at the welfare determination. It can lead a court to conclude that the children’s best interests are not served with remaining with that parent even though that parent may have been wholly exonerated from having caused any physical injury.[157]The court should not assume too easily that if a person was living in the same household as the perpetrator such a finding is almost inevitable, (King LJ in Re L- W [2019] EWCA Civ 159 paragraphs 63 and 64). An allegation that one carer failed to protect a child from another carer requires the local authority to prove that X was violent/aggressive, that he/she posed a risk of harm to the child, and that Y ought to have known of that risk. In Re L – W [2019] EWCA Civ 159 King LJ held that the first instance judge was right to find that the father was capable of violence to adult males. However, the judge failed to explain how the father’s previous violence towards adult males was transferred to an observable risk of harm to female children. In paragraph 61 King LJ said this: “In my judgment, putting together GL’s behaviour in the home with his aggression on two occasions a number of years apart on adult men outside the home, do not go anywhere near supporting a causative link such that the mother ought to have known that GL presented a risk of physical abuse to L or the twins”.[158]Welfare 168. Section 1CA 1989. When considering whether to make a lives with order, a supervision order or a special guardianship order the courts paramount consideration shall be the child’s welfare, (S1 (1) Children Act). The court should be mindful of the no order principle as set out in s1 (5) that a court should not make an order “unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all”. The court shall have regard in particular to the s (1) (3) welfare checklist as set out below:- (a)the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding); (b)his physical, emotional and educational needs; (c)the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; (d)his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; (e)any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering; (f)how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs; (g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question. Assessing the future risk of harm.[159]In F ( A Child: Placement[160]In Re H (Care Proceedings: Risk Assessment). [2025] EWCA Civ 727it was held that the court when assessing any recent changes on the part of a mother to recognise the risk posed by an abusive partner must place that recent change within the context of the previous history of entering into domestically abusive relationships. In paragraph 39 Baker LJ said this:
“The judge was right to take into account the recent factors which were said to show an improvement in the mother’s attitude to the father and her awareness of risk, but before he could safely conclude that she had developed “the necessary resilience and insight” which would “enable her to protect herself and H from the risks from the father and from any other individual with whom [she] forms a relationship in the future who turns out to be abusive”, he needed to analyse the recent developments in the context of the mother’s history. The judgment contains no such analysis. Having recited in full the agreed findings on which the threshold criteria under s.31 were satisfied, the judge made no further reference to them in reaching his conclusion as to the extent of the future risks”
. Child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings considered in light of his age and understanding.[161]In H (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 733 Mrs Justice Parker said that ‘I have more than once stressed in this case, as in others, that the word used in the Children Act about wishes and feelings is "ascertainable" and not "expressed". "Ascertainable" often means that the Court has to look at actions rather than words.’[162]The welfare analysis. In Re B ( A Child) [2013] UKSC 33the Supreme Court held that a care plan for adoption “was an extreme thing of last resort– when all else fails”, (Lord Neuberger paragraph 104). The Court held that a care plan for adoption must be proportionate and should only be made to protect the interests of the child, by which is meant that “nothing else will do”, and the overriding welfare of the child requires it (Baroness Hale paragraph 198). In 2013 the court of appeal in a number of decisions considered how the principles in Re B should be applied. The most frequently cited are G (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, and Re B – S (Children) [2014] 1 WLR 863. The principles to be applied can be summarised thus: i. The local authority must provide a clear analysis of all options open to the court and the advantages and disadvantages to the child of each option. ii. The local authority must set out what support and service can be made available to meet any identified risks of an alternative care plan to that which the local authority proposes. This allows the court to undertake properly the balance of harm exercise (as part of the welfare evaluation), using the tool of proportionality to evaluate which placement best meets the child’s welfare, (Re W (A Child v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 122). iii. The court must rigorously analyse, evaluate and compare side by side the advantages and disadvantages of each realistic option having regard to the findings that the court has arrived at. iv. The linear approach is not acceptable when considering adoption. It must be a global holistic approach. v. Having considered the pros and cons of each realistic option the court should conduct a necessity and proportionality cross check by asking itself whether the orders are necessary to secure the child’s welfare and are they proportionate to the risk of harm.[163]When considering the possible welfare outcomes, the court should have in mind the classic statement of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050; [2006] EWCC 2 (Fam) at [50] where he says this:
“society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.”
[164]The court must apply the welfare evaluation as set out in Re B – S when the care plan is one of placement with a parent or a special guardianship order, (Re H (A Child) (Analysis of Realistic Options and SGOs) [2015] EWCA Civ 406). Special guardianship orders.[165]Technically the court does not need to make any threshold findings when making a SGO. However, In C ( A Child) (Special Guardianship Order) [2019] EWCA Civ Moylan LJ said this in paragraph 67: “The only observation I would make is that I agree with the submission that, when a court is determining care proceedings, and even if the ultimate decision is to make a special guardianship order (which is legally not a public law order), there are good reasons for the court dealing with the threshold criteria. In particular, this will set out the court’s conclusions on the evidence and provide a clear factual foundation both for the basis of the order and for any applications made in the future”.[166]The making of a SGO has the effect of giving parental responsibility to the Special Guardian and entitling the Special Guardian to exercise parental responsibility to the exclusion of any other person with parental responsibility, (apart from another Special Guardian), (S14C (1) Children Act). It follows therefore that a SGO represents a significant interference with the child and his/her parents Article 8 rights.[167]A SGO provides a greater degree of permanence when compared to a child arrangements order. However, a SGO should not be made only when permanence is required. An SGO should be made if the welfare interests of the child demand it, and the court should analyse and explain why the child’s welfare interests justify the making of an SGO rather than a child arrangements order, (C ( A Child) (Special Guardianship Order) [2019] EWCA Civ 2281). Supervision Orders .

Welfare

[168]A Supervision Order does not confer parental responsibility on the local authority. While a Supervision Order is in force it is the duty of the supervising local authority to advise, assist and befriend the supervised child, (Section 35 Children Act). If the local authority is seeking a Supervision Order it must have a clear and detailed Supervision Support Plan setting out the resources and services that underpin each element of the plan. This Supervision Support plan should be reviewed during the life of the Supervision Order, (JW (Child at Home under a Care Order) [2023] EWCA Civ 944).[169]Submissions. I see little to be gained in burdening this already long judgement by reciting the very helpful oral submissions made by counsel. I have however, considered those submissions very carefully.[170]Discussion/Analysis. It seems to me that the following matters require consideration. i. The medical evidence. ii. The credibility of M. iii. Risk and protective factors. iv. M’s parenting prior to March 2025. v. The opinion of Miss Murtagh. vi. M’s mental health. vii. M appointment with the GP on the 14th March 2025. viii. The second bruise behind the left ear noted on the 16th March 2026. ix. The credibility of CW. x. Whether CW caused any harm to the boys. xi. The two messages sent by CW on the 3rd February and the 11th March 2025. xii. The evidence of CW’s partner CT. The medical evidence.[171]I accept the medical evidence of Dr Rose, Dr Watt and Dr Allameddine. I therefore accept that there is no underlying medical reason why B may bruise more easily or may be particularly susceptible to sustaining fractures. I accept Dr Rose’s evidence that the cause of the fading bruise to the left torso is indeterminate and that the fading bruise to the left thigh is consistent with accidental and non-accidental injury, but that the presence of linear bruises to one thigh “pushes it slightly to inflicted”; and that the left ear bruise and the bruise behind the left ear noted on the 16th March 2025 is likely to have been inflicted. I accept the evidence of Dr Rose that it is possible that when B sustains bruising he does not cry or show distress. I also accept Dr Rose’s clear evidence that the second bruise behind the left ear noted on the 16th March 2025 was a new bruise. I also accept Dr Rose’s evidence that it is likely that this second bruise occurred some 30 minutes to an hour before the ward round on the 16th March 2026 but it was possible that the injury could have occurred the previous afternoon.[172]I accept Dr Rose’s evidence that the fractures to the arms would have been exquisitely painful for 10 to 15 minutes post injury but that the possibility of B not suffering significant pain in this immediate post injury period cannot be excluded. I also accept that following this acute period a carer would not necessarily have known that B had injured his arm as there would be no outward manifestation of a fracture such as swelling or deformity. I also accept that post fractures B may possibly have been able to use the fractured arm in the same way as his non injured arm. I also accept Dr Rose’s evidence that it was possible that when being dressed and undressed that a carer may have noted B in distress but that the origin of that distress may not have been obvious.[173]The credibility of M. M now accepts that she lied to the medics, social services, the police and this court when she initially denied/played down the role of CW in the lives of these children. I thus approach M’s evidence with considerable caution. I also do not accept M’s denial that when she smacked H on the 3rd July 2024 whilst at the placement that this was the first time that she had laid hands on her children. M expressed surprise to the placement staff that she should not be physically chastising H. M’s denial that she only used physical chastisement on this one occasion whilst in placement is not therefore credible.[174]There are numerous examples of M offering inconsistent explanations as to how B may have sustained his injuries. M informed the police on the 17th March 2025 that the left torso bruise was a birth mark but during the child protection medical M makes no mention of the birth mark and maintained that B may have sustained the injury when he bumped into things. In any event the photograph of the injury taken on the 17th March 2025 is clearly that of a bruise and not a birth mark. M also told the GP on the 14th March 2025 that the thigh bruises were caused by her playing with B whereas in the child protection medical M says that she did not witness how B sustained the bruises. M’s assertion that the thigh bruises may have been caused by her gripping B’s thigh so that Dr S could take blood is not plausible as it is clear that Dr S completed her body map prior to her taking blood from B.[175]The lies told by M particularly in respect of CW’s exposure to the children do not of themselves establish that M inflicted these injuries on B. This lie only serves to corroborate other evidence but to do so I must be satisfied that a number of features are present. I am satisfied that the lie about CW’s presence was deliberate. The lie relates to a material issue in this case namely whether CW inflicted the injuries on B. However, the lie per se does not serve to absolve M of culpability in fact the absence of another perpetrator serves to strengthen the case against her. In my judgment there are a number of other explanations for M’s lie. M was desperate to maintain her relationship with CW and was easily influenced by him, as is evident by her allowing CW to take on the disciplining role and her evidence that she believed that CW was the parent of her. I also accept M’s evidence that she was influenced by the erroneous information that she was viewing on social media as to the role of social services. M is understandably fearful that her children will be removed from her and this fear has and still does impact on the reliability of her evidence. I also remind myself that just because a party has lied as to some matters does not mean that they have lied about everything. I note for example that M readily accepted that she would take a child in a buggy to assist her when shop lifting. The inconsistencies provided by M as to how B sustained the bruises does not in my judgment lead to a conclusion that she knew that B had sustained inflicted injuries. It smacks instead of a mother who was fearful of the involvement of professionals, was aware that B tended to fall and bump into things and really did not know how the various bruises were sustained.[176]Risk and protective factors. There are a number of risk factors in this case in particular domestic abuse, substance misuse, poor parental mental health, social isolation and a lack of family support and cohesion. However, I remind myself that the existence of these risks factors proves nothing. Their presence simply serves as a helpful framework within which the evidence can be assessed and the facts established.[177]M’s parenting prior to March 2025. I agree with the submission of Mr Braithwaite that the injuries to B as noted in March 2025 must be seen within the context of there not being any historical concerns as to M’s parenting. By March of 2025 H was approaching his fourth birthday. It is clear that by that stage social services had been involved with M for at least two years as a consequence of M having to flee to a refuge following the domestic abuse perpetrated upon her by the children’s father. It was also reported that during a period when M had been residing in a property owned by X Housing the children were noted as being clean, well dressed, and appropriately fed and there had been no concerns as to the children’s safety and welfare. This absence of historical concerns serves to militate against a finding that M inflicted the injuries upon B. I also note that Dr T considered that B was well cared for.[178]The opinion of Ms M. I note that Ms M had the benefit of assessing M over the period that she and the children were at the residential placement. This was a period of some five months, (July to December 2025). I thus attach some weight to Ms M view that M was unlikely to have caused B direct physical harm. That, of course comes with the obvious and important caveat that Ms M was not present during the relevant period.[179]M’s mental health. There is an absence of any medical evidence as to M’s mental health difficulties. I have, however, no reason to doubt M’s report to Ms M that she had suffered from anxiety for some time and that her mental health deteriorated after B’s birth whom she struggled to bond with as he looked like his father. These are factors that arguably tend to support a finding that M inflicted the injuries upon B.[180]The GP appointment on the 14th March 2025. In my judgment the fact that M took B to see the GP on the 14th March 2025 militates against a finding that she caused the injuries to her son. I find it difficult to accept that any parent who had perpetrated such injuries would then voluntarily seek medical advice. M’s conduct may have been in keeping with her inflicting the harm if B was acutely unwell and it was thus obvious that medical intervention was required. This was not the situation in March of 2025.[181]The second bruise behind the left ear noted on the 16th March 2026. It was M who on the 16th March 2026 brought to the attention of the clinicians the second bruise behind C’s left ear. If M had inflicted this injury, then it is difficult to understand why M would then draw attention to it. In addition, the evidence of the treating clinician and Dr Rose is that this second injury was not present when M initially presented to the hospital in the early hours of the 15th March. This injury thus represents a second impact of some form. Dr Rose opined that the injury was likely sustained within 30 to 60 minutes of it being noted during the ward round on the 16th . This would mean that M had inflicted this injury whilst she was at the hospital. I consider that to be most unlikely. The only other possibility is that M or CW inflicted the injury during the few hours that she and B were home on the 15th March 2025. Dr Rose considered this to be unlikely and only possible. I also find it hard to understand why M would inflict further injury when social services were already involved, and she knew that she had to return to the hospital later that afternoon. I find that CW knew on M’s return on the 15th March that social services were now involved. CW had some time alone with B whilst M took a shower. However, I again find it hard to accept that in this context CW would inflict an injury upon B.[182]The credibility of CW. I find CW to be an unreliable witness. CW repeatedly lied to the police as to his involvement with the children. CW also lied in his witness statement of November 2025. I do not accept CW’s oral evidence that M did not tell him on the 17th March 2025 that she had been arrested for GBH in respect of the bruises. There is no doubt that CW lied on a material issue but that in itself is not direct proof of culpability. I find that CW’s repeated untruths advanced by him during his police interview were deliberate. I do not accept however, that CW’s motivation for lying was necessarily a realisation of his culpability and a fear of the truth. I do not accept Miss Pryor’s submission that CW’s explanation for lying, that he does not like social workers following the involvement of social services with his son, lacks credibility as it was social services that assisted him in being able to have contact with R. I find that CW has a general distrust of those in authority as evidenced by his assertion that his practice is not to provide his name to police officers when they ask for the same. In my judgment it is far too simplistic to conclude that as social services ultimately vindicated CW and assisted him in being able to see his son that he had no cause to be distrustful of them. In his oral evidence CW said that social service only helped him after they were satisfied that there were no child protection issues. I accept that M and CW agreed upon a joint venture to lie to social services and others as to CW’s involvement with the boys and that one explanation for this conduct was the distrust that they both had of social services.[183]Whether CW caused any harm to the boys. CW to his credit accepts that he has a short temper and that he could “lose his mind” and that his mind would go “blank” and that when he becomes angry “my temper takes over”. I find that CW did shout in front of the children and swore in their presence (as evidenced by the video) and seems to have had little regard as to the adverse emotional impact that this would have had on the boys. I find that CW on the 13th December 2024 kicked a door off its hinges. CW’s explanation that M could have damaged the door albeit that he could not recall her damaging things prior to that event leads me to conclude that on the balance of probabilities CW damaged the door. I accept that CW had a good relationship with the children. I find it difficult to accept CW’s assertion that whilst caring for B there was never a time that he found him to be difficult or annoying. I am not entirely sure what to make of CW’s message sent on the 23rd January 2025 in which he says that at least the children would be happier now that he had left the home. I attach no weight to H’s allegation made to the social worker on the 29th April 2025 that CW hit M, nor to the allegation that he made to the foster carer on the 1st May 2025 that he had heard but not seen CW hurt M. I also do not attach any weight to H’s allegation made to Ms M that he heard his mother say “ow” when she and CW were in another room. I am mindful that children are poor historians and are easily suggestible. I also note that H was not ABE interviewed and therefore the various strategies to avoid the evidence of children not being contaminated or undermined by the questioner were not in place.[184]On balance I am satisfied that CW was verbally abusive to M and her to him but that this fell short of physical violence. I am satisfied that CW’s verbal abuse caused H and B to suffer emotional harm. CW’s lack of control and verbal abuse absent a finding of physical violence against M cannot simply lead to a conclusion that he harmed B. However, it is evidence that I can take into account alongside the other evidence in this case when determining whether the injuries were inflicted and if so who was the likely perpetrator. I am also very mindful that neither M or CW have alleged that they saw the other physically harm the children. This is telling evidence. M and CW are no longer in a relationship with each other. They thus have no incentive to protect the other. I thus accept their evidence on this issue which militates against positive findings of infliction and perpetration.[185]The two messages sent by CW on the 3rd February and the 11th March 2025. I do not find as suggested by Miss Pryor that CW messaging that B would cry when M returned is evidence that CW harmed B. I found the evidence of M and CW that B tended to cry on M’s returns as he was excited to have been credible.[186]The evidence of CW’s mother. I found LJ to be a reliable and credible witness. I found her evidence that she did not believe that her son would inflict injury upon B to be genuine. That said LJ’s evidence only takes me so far as she was not present in the home and she is not an independent witness. CW’s assertion that he would send photographs of B’s injuries to his mother is only partially supported by LJ, (whose evidence I prefer), who asserts that she was only sent photographs of a rash and a black eye. This inconsistency serves only to reinforce my view that CW is an unreliable witness.[187]The evidence of CW’s ex partner CT. I attach no weight at all to the evidence of CT that she believes that CW assaulted R. CT was not called to give evidence and my understanding is that she no longer stands by that allegation. In any event it is accepted that social services looked into the injury sustained by R and CW was absolved. The injury was deemed attributable to R falling on his toys whilst in the care of CW’s mother.[188]Threshold findings. The local authority must prove on the balance of probabilities that the fractures to B’s arm and the bruises were inflicted. If I am so satisfied I am required to determine whether M or CW were the perpetrators and if I am unable to arrive at such finding whether or not there is a real possibility that either adult inflicted the injuries. In this case there is a pool of two. I am thus required to determine whether it was more likely that M or CW inflicted the injuries.[189]The medical evidence in respect of the fractures is that they could have been inflicted by B falling on to an outstretched arm/falling with his arm twisted beneath him/hitting his arm as he fell, or by an inflicted blow. A finding that the injuries were not inflicted is therefore not inconsistent with the medical evidence. In respect of two of the bruises, the left torso and the left thigh the medical evidence is that these bruises could have been inflicted or caused accidentally. Dr Rose’s suggestion in his oral evidence that the unilateral nature of the thigh bruises and their linear presence only “pushes” his opinion “slightly” towards these bruises being inflicted does not in my judgment equate to Dr Rose opining that these bruises were likely to have been inflicted. A finding that the torso and thigh bruises were not inflicted is thus in keeping with the medical evidence.[190]This leaves the bruise to the left upper and inner ear, the bruise to the upper region of the right inner ear lobe and the bruise behind the ear noted on the 16th March 2025. I have concerns as to the provenance of the bruise to the upper region of the right inner ear lobe. This injury was not noted by the GP on the 14th March. Although it was noted on Dr S’s body map on the 15th March I also note that on the 16th March the social worker recorded Dr T as saying that she had not recorded/seen the bruising to the right ear on the 15th March and that she had updated the body map accordingly. That body map records that the bruise behind the left ear noted on the 16th March was added subsequent to Dr S completing the body map. There is no such comment made in respect of the right ear bruise. The presence of the right ear bruise is for the reasons as set out above not clear.[191]If one excludes the right ear, the medical evidence supports a finding that the left ear bruise and the bruise behind the ear were inflicted. However, I am also mindful that on the 16th March the social worker reported Dr T as saying that the bruise behind the left ear noted on the 16th March was unusual and unexplained and that NAI did not present in that manner. This is at odds with the opinion of Dr Rose. Dr Rose’s oral evidence that the bruise to the left ear noted on the 15th March was a pinching injury and that he did not see how a toddler of B’s age could have inflicted this injury and that he had not seen such injuries in his practice supports a finding that this injury was inflicted. Indeed this element of the evidence has troubled me.[192]In coming to a view as to infliction I am not bound by the medical evidence even if, as I do, accept the same. It is open to the court to not make positive findings of infliction having considered the totality of the evidence. I accept that B was unsteady on his feet and that he tended to bump into things as this was noted by a number of clinicians. I have considered all of the matters as set out above and in so doing I do not find that on the balance of probabilities that the fractures and bruises were inflicted. Having made that finding the issue of perpetration does not arise.[193]I consider it far more likely that the bruises were caused by B’s tendency to be clumsy. I also find it more likely that the fractures were caused by accidental falls on a concrete floor. What has troubled me is the evidence of Dr Rose that in the 10 to 15 minutes post fracture B would have been in significant distress and thereafter although B’s arms would not show signs of being fractured B would likely have expressed distress when being dressed and undressed. I accept that evidence. I reject the evidence of M and CW that they did not witness either the acute presentation in the immediate post injury period or the distress likely displayed thereafter. This is yet another example of the web of lies and deceit that these two individuals have spun to seek to distance themselves from any hint of culpability. I thus find it likely that whilst the fractures were not inflicted B did exhibit the behaviour described by Dr Rose and that M and CW lied not because they had inflicted any injury but because of an erroneous belief that persistent denials would place them away from any blame. This behaviour was demonstrated vividly by M’s denial that she had in the past never physically chastised the children. There has been no suggestion that B’s injuries may have been caused by physical chastisement yet despite that M deliberately in my judgment lied to the court when there was no real reason to do so other than a belief that she and CW now hold that they must deny anything which arguably could paint them in an unfavourable light. In CW’s case this behaviour was apparent when he asserted that during the time that he cared for B he did not find him irritating or annoying. I find it difficult to accept that any caregiver, no matter how devoted they may be to a child, does not from time to time have feelings of annoyance and irritation.[194]M in her response to threshold avers that if the court concludes that the fractures were sustained in an accidental fall and occurred whilst in M’s care that her supervision was inadequate. I cannot make a finding that the fractures occurred whilst in M’s care. I can and do make a finding that M failed to adequately supervise B as there is an evidential basis for such a finding. M’s description of the fall that took place on the 13th March 2025 indicates that she did not have eyes upon her son and was instead watching the television. This was despite the fact that she knew that B was unsteady on his feet and had a propensity to fall/bump into objects. I also find that M’s lack of supervision of B explains her failure to act upon his significant distress immediately following these falls and her failure to recognise his discomfort when being dressed and undressed. To her credit M accepts that her supervision of B was inadequate, and she also accepts that her use of cannabis was a factor in her neglecting the needs of her son. M’s relationship with CW was an unhealthy one and I find that M’s failure to have her eyes upon her toddler son was in part a manifestation of her preoccupation with CW.[195]I also find that M failed to protect both of her children from the emotional harm caused by the verbal abuse directed towards her and the children. M knew by December of 2024 that CW had problems with his temper, that he could be verbally abusive and destructive and that this posed a risk of emotional harm to the boys. Despite this M continued to expose H and B to this relationship.[196]The welfare determination. In light of my findings there is a risk that the children if placed with M will suffer physical harm as a consequence of M failing to adequately supervise and physical and emotional harm as a consequence of M entering into domestically abusive relationships. In my judgement the risks of harm that flow from a lack of supervision are very low. M has had the benefit of extensive parenting support and instruction. M has also accepted that her use of cannabis must be reduced/eliminated and has taken active steps to do so. In addition, M is no longer in a relationship with CW which likely caused her to focus her attention away from her son. I am also satisfied that the involvement of the local authority during the life of the supervision order and M’s family support network will serve to ameliorate this risk.[197]I also find that the risk of M entering into another domestically abusive relationship has considerably reduced. M has benefited from extensive input on this subject and is aware of her own vulnerabilities and the risks that can be posed by some men. These risks are also considerably mitigated by the ongoing involvement of the local authority and the presence of her family members.[198]There are only two realistic options before the court the transition of the children back into the care of M subject to a six-month supervision order or an SGO in favour of the MGM and MSGF. If the children are placed with M this family’s Article 8 rights will be preserved, and the children will be cared for by their mother whom they love dearly. M is more than capable of meeting the children’s needs and the risks of them suffering from harm via lack of supervision and/or by M entering into another domestically abusive relationship is very low.[199]An SGO in favour of the MGM and MSGF is not in accordance with their wishes or that of the mother. Whilst the children will be well cared for and will be able to maintain a relationship with their mother, this order is neither necessary or proportionate and would amount to an infringement of this families Article 8 rights. I am thus of the view that the children should be returned to the care of M subject to a six-month supervision order.[200]That is my judgment. HHJ Thomas, 12th August 2026.

Order

Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761 (Jackson LJ) the court of appeal proposed that when assessing the risk of harm that may eventuate in the future the court should ask itself the four questions namely what is the type of harm that might arise, what is the likelihood of that harm arising, what would the consequences be to the child in terms of severity if the harm eventuated and finally how can the risks of harm be reduced/mitigated by support services that are or could be provided?