A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 84 (B)

IMPORTANT NOTICE This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of Court.[2026] EWFC 84 (B)IN THE FAMILY COURT AT CHESTER & CREWEIN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989AND IN THE MATTER OF HBEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE HESFORD
Between
A LOCAL AUTHORITYApplicantTHE MOTHERRespondentTHE FATHERRespondentH(BY HER CHILDREN’S GUARDIAN)3rd RespondentTHE INTERVENORIntervenor________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT FOLLOWING COMPOSITE HEARING ON 20 - 27 MARCH 2026JUDGMENT DATED 10 APRIL 2026_______________________________________________________________Ms Holt for Local AuthorityMr Carey for MotherMs Leigh for FatherMr Povoas for Child via her GuardianMr Allen for IntervenorDate 2026-04-10
[1]This judgment concerns H a young girl aged around 18 months. Her parents are Ms M and Mr F. The intervenor is Ms I, a friend of the mother.[2]This judgment is in two parts, dealing separately with the issues of fact-finding and welfare. The intervenor played no part in the welfare matters and she was discharged as an intervenor by the court, by agreement of all parties, at the beginning of day five prior to her oral evidence. She will not receive a copy of this judgment but her advocate Mr Allen should, so that he can ensure that she is aware of the outcome and that she was wholly exonerated. This of course is relevant to her own personal situation, as Children’s Services are involved with her own children due to this matter (and prior history).[3]I have not set out all the evidence which I have read, heard, and seen but have highlighted particularly relevant matters. Nevertheless, all evidence has been considered and taken into account. The bundle and supplemental bundle amounted to almost 3000 pages.[4]This judgment is structured as follows: Section I: Introduction Section II: The proceedings and the background Section III: The nature of the hearing and participation Section IV: The parties’ positions Section V: The Local Authority case and Threshold/Findings sought Section VI: Submissions Section VII: The legal principles regarding fact finding Section VIII: Evidence and Fact-Finding Analysis Section IX: The legal principles regarding welfare Issues Section X The Threshold and the Welfare Issues Section XI: Final Decision

II THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE BACKGROUND

[5]The application before the court is the Local Authority’s application for a care order which was issued on 7 June 2025.[6]This is a combined finding of fact and welfare hearing with the Court tasked with determining whether H has suffered non-accidental/inflicted injuries and if so, then to determine the perpetrator of the injuries if possible. Depending upon my findings (if any), I then consider the welfare of H and decide where she should live.[7]Ms M was not known to the Local Authority prior to these proceedings. She has issues in respect of her mental health, struggling with depression for “as long as she can remember” and has a diagnosis of ADHD and emotionally unstable personality disorder. She has previously self-harmed and experienced abuse in a previous romantic relationship, reporting that this male had gone so far as to threaten to stab her.[8]Mr F was known to children’s services as a child due to concerns around allegations of sexual abuse committed by his father, domestic abuse between his parents, mental health issues and parental alcohol abuse. He has reported an extremely traumatic childhood - his stepfather would regularly beat him and his mother would then force him to cover up those assaults. At the age of 12 years old, Mr F witnessed his stepfather attempting suicide by slicing his own throat in front of him. He has a longstanding history of substance misuse, smoking cannabis from around the age of 13 years and ultimately going on to use harder, more addictive substances. He is also dependent on alcohol and between 2021 and May 2025 he had a total of 16 hospital admissions related to his alcohol consumption or withdrawal. In 2024 he completed a detoxification programme but has continued to drink. He advised that at one time he would drink up to 20 pints a day, although reported that this had significantly reduced.[9]Mr F has a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, emotionally unstable personality disorder, manic anxiety, clinical depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and has a history of overdoses. He is on the waiting list to be assessed for ADHD. He has struggled to manage his emotions since childhood, regularly being excluded from school due to fighting with other pupils. He has spoken about experiencing paranoia as part of his symptoms and will self-harm and use illicit substances to try and manage his poor mental health. Despite the raft of complex issues, his engagement with mental health services is poor.[10]H was placed, as an unborn, on a Child in Need plan on 27 March 2024 due to concerns about domestic violence between the parents. They later denied the incidents which led to this. The assessment also highlighted significant concerns around Ms M being homeless, both parents’ drug misuse and Mr F’s ongoing mental health issues. Further information about issues of concern were set out in the written opening filed by the Local Authority including Mr F assaulting and threatening his uncle.[11]Following H’s birth, the parents reported that Mr F was not living in the family home although he would visit and spend time with his daughter. Ms M was clear that she would not allow him into the home if she detected any signs that he was under the influence or if he had been drinking at all. Both parents engaged well with the health visitor and other professionals around parenting and routines and H was seen to be thriving in their care, with lots of emotional warmth being noted and all her basic care needs being met.[12]On 17 March 2025, following H’s birth the Local Authority updated their assessment, concluding that Ms M was a protective factor. She had secured a home for herself and baby and there was wider family support available to them, and although concerns continued about Mr F’s ongoing substance misuse and mental health it was deemed that both parents had good insight into those issues and were able to recognise when H needed to be prioritised. Ms M had stated that she had ended her relationship with Mr F after discovering that he was consuming cocaine and was therefore not allowing any unsupervised contact, only seeing H only in the community. In addition, Mr F was engaging positively with mental health services and was compliant with his medication, therefore, the Local Authority closed the case. Sadly it became clear that the true situation at home for H was extremely risky, surrounded by drug and alcohol misuse and neglect and that the parents had been deceiving the social workers and their own families.[13]On [a date] local CCTV in [name] town centre showed Mr F and his friend taking part in a drug deal. Officers traced him to the [name] pub and he and his friend were arrested on suspicion of supplying heroin (heroin and other drug dealing paraphernalia having been found in a bag that had been placed on H’s pram). Ms M was present in the pub with H and her friend Ms I and her own child. The police officer reported that Ms M had potentially attempted to hide/move the bag of drugs from view.[14]Mr F was released from custody and immediately returned to Ms M’s flat. The following day H presented at the hospital with a significant head injury and it transpired that the parents had been concealing significant information from professionals and that Ms M in particular had been dishonest about the risks H was being exposed to prior to her admission.[15]On 24 May 2025, from around 3pm, H was being cared for by the maternal grandmother. She had collected H from Ms M’s flat along with maternal aunt and taken her back to her own house. Others were also present at various times when H was at the property. That evening at around 7pm, whilst bathing and washing H’s hair the maternal grandmother noticed one side of her head felt “squishy”. She has described in her statement that she “had a soft lump in her head which was squidgy in texture”. She called Ms M who could not explain the lump and took H straight to [name] hospital, collecting Ms M on the way and arriving at 7.56pm. The maternal grandmother reported that H had presented normally throughout the afternoon – happy, playful and feeding and walking in her walking chair.[16]Examination of H revealed a 4x4cm boggy swelling around 2cm above H’s left ear. A CT scan revealed a left sided parietal skull fracture with a small subdural haematoma. None of the explanations put forward by Ms M as to the possible cause of the injury were deemed likely by the medical professionals, who considered that the head injury was more likely inflicted and attributable to either blunt force trauma or H being dropped from a significant height. When Ms M was advised of the injury by the medical professionals she presented as extremely upset, vomiting and hyperventilating.[17]H was placed under Police Powers of Protection and Ms M and Mr F agreed for H to be accommodated under Section 20 on 29 May 2025, she was placed with her paternal great aunt and uncle following her release from hospital. She was made subject to an Interim Care Order on 20 June 2025 and has remained in this placement to date. The placement was initially approved under regulation 24 and following a positive connected carers assessment they were approved formally at fostering panel as kinship carers for H in September 2025.[18]Whilst Ms I’s background is not directly relevant for the purposes of understanding H’s experiences within her family home, it is noteworthy that she too has had previous Local Authority involvement. On [a date] 2019 her son, S, was admitted to hospital with a head injury, having been found unresponsive, blue around the lips and not breathing in his cot. S had sustained brain damage as a result of his respiration being impaired and an inadequate supply of oxygen getting to his brain. On 12 November 2020 McDonald J. made a raft of findings relating to Ms I and her then partner and the poor parenting that had been received by their children. He made findings that S had been overlaid by one or other of his parents, that both parents were aware of the circumstances and cause of S’s impaired respiration and had failed to disclose the same and that both had sought to collude to conceal the circumstances of S’s injury from those investigating the case of the injury including the medical staff, the police and the court. A copy of the judgment was provided in the bundle. S now has a new child in her care and her life is significantly different.

III THE NATURE OF THE HEARING AND PARTICIPATION

[19]This case has been allocated to HHJ Hesford throughout and has benefitted from judicial continuity. This hearing took place as an attended hearing over 6 days including submissions. Ms Holt for the Local Authority provided a very useful Written Opening, Chronology and Law Summary which have been of considerable assistance.[20]I had the opportunity of seeing the parents and the intervenor give evidence in the witness box, over three days for Ms M and one day for Mr F, and to form my own opinions about their evidence and credibility. It was extremely useful to do so. Alongside the medical evidence, their evidence was crucial for me in coming to my decisions. In view of the particular relevance of this to my decisions I have of course considered “Lucas” and all other relevant law throughout. SPECIAL MEASURES AND GROUND RULES[21]Ms M’s cognitive functioning was assessed by Dr. Allen on 14 July 2025. He concluded that she is a woman of low-average cognitive ability, with full scale IQ in the range 82-90, placing her at the 18th percentile and within the low average range. Her verbal comprehension and working memory fell within the average range. He provided several steps the court could take to enhance her capacity to provide accurate oral evidence.[22]No intermediaries were required for any party.[23]Ground Rules were established at the hearing on 10 March 2026 and the order set out the ground rules for the parents and intervenor which were applied throughout this hearing. They are attached at the end of this judgment as an appendix.

IV THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS

[24]The Local Authority initially sought findings against Ms M, Mr F or Ms I in relation to the injuries, including a failure to protect or to seek medical attention but ultimately they no longer sought findings against Ms I. In the full threshold, the Local Authority sought additional “welfare” findings against Ms M and Mr F. I will deal with the issues of findings concerning the injuries and the whole threshold separately. Their plan was for H to remain with her current carers under a Special Guardianship Order (SGO), with a Child in Need plan for 6 months.[25]Ms M accepted the medical evidence but denied causing any of the injuries. She sought for H to be rehabilitated to her care or if not to her care, then ideally to the care of [other relatives] and if not them, to the current carers but not under an SGO. During the hearing, her position changed, whereby she no longer sought to challenge the placement and the making of an SGO in favour of the current carers. She still sought additional and progressive contact and the making of a Supervision Order (SO).[26]Mr F accepted the medical evidence but denied causing any of the injuries. He initially sought for H to be rehabilitated to Ms M’s care or for her to remain with the current carers. He attended late on the first day of the hearing. Thereafter he filed a statement agreeing with the plans of the Local Authority.[27]The intervenor Ms I denied inflicting or any knowledge of the injuries.[28]The Guardian agreed with the plans of the Local Authority and agreed that a Supervision Order was necessary.

V THE LOCAL AUTHORITY CASE & FINDINGS SOUGHT

[29]The Local Authority sought findings concerning injuries as set out in the Final Threshold. HEAD INJURIES: 1. Between approximately 14th and 24th May 2025 H suffered significant physical harm by way of the following inflicted injuries: a) A left sided skull vault stellate fracture located in the posterior parietal bone. b) An acute scalp haematoma over the left parietal bone, predominantly posteriorly. c) An acute extra-axial haemorrhage on the left side of her head. 2. The injuries at paragraph 1 were caused by blunt impact trauma with high force, point contact, with the perpetrator either striking H’s head directly with a hard object, likely with an edge or point, or forcibly throwing her against such a surface or object. 3. No adequate explanation for the injuries has been provided by the mother in circumstances where it would be reasonable to expect such an explanation to be available. 4. The injuries at paragraph 1 were caused by the mother and/or the father and/or Ms I. 5. The perpetrator of the injuries knew that they had caused significant physical harm to H because they were the perpetrator of them and because they observed and heard the pain and distress evinced by H both at the time and thereafter. 6. The perpetrator of the injuries did not seek immediate, or any, medical attention for H. 7. In the event the Court concludes that either of the other adults were present or aware after the fact that the injuries had been inflicted upon H by the perpetrator, that adult failed to protect H by not reporting the incident or obtaining urgent medical attention for H. 8. The mother was not open and honest with treating clinicians or with the Local Authority to ensure that the hospital and child protection professionals had all of the necessary information to treat H and to ensure that she was protected from further harm: a) Whilst at the hospital the mother asked a friend to lie to the police and to professionals and say that: i. She had visited the home and had the sole care of H for a period on 21st May 2025; and ii. H had fallen off a bed during that time period. b) The mother lied about the contact that the father had had with H around the time the injuries were sustained. 9. The perpetrator of the injuries has lied about how the injuries were caused to conceal the truth about the circumstances in which they were inflicted. POOR MENTAL HEALTH: 10. The father has a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, emotionally unstable personality disorder, manic anxiety, clinical depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder. He also has a history of overdoses and self-harm. He has not always been compliant with his medication or engaged consistently with mental health support services. The father’s poor and fluctuating mental health affects his ability to provide safe and consistent parenting to H. 11. The mother has a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and unstable personality disorder and has experienced periods of poor mental health. She has, at times, experienced suicidal ideation and has attempted to manage her symptoms with substance misuse. SUBSTANCE MISUSE: 12. The father is dependent on alcohol and between 2021 and May 2025 he had a total of 16 hospital admissions related to his alcohol consumption or withdrawal. In 2024 he completed a detoxification programme but has continued to drink. 13. The father has a history of misusing drugs, including heroin, cocaine and cannabis. 14. On 23rd May 2025 whilst in the care of her parents a bag containing heroin was found on H’s pram. 15. The mother has issues with drug and alcohol use. She was using cocaine whilst she was caring for H and had been hiding this issue from professionals for a significant period of time. 16. On 22nd May 2025 the mother was intoxicated whilst H was in her care. DOMESTIC ABUSE: 17. The mother has a history of engaging in domestically abusive relationships. 18. There has been domestic abuse between the parents: a) On 29th January 2024 an argument between the parents turned physical, resulting in the mother sustaining head injuries. The mother was in the early stages of her pregnancy with H at the time; [Accepted by the mother, not accepted by the father]. b) In June 2025 the father made threats to kill the mother and the maternal grandmother. 19. The parents have not always been honest about the domestic abuse that has taken place between them. 20. The parents have prioritised their own needs and the needs of each other over the needs of H. GENERAL: 21. The father lives a transient lifestyle and is regularly homeless. THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE[30]None of the medical evidence was challenged. It is accepted and established. The court was assisted by two experts – Dr Fionnan Williams, Paediatric Neuroradiologist and Dr Jonathan Cardwell, Consultant Paediatrician. I will set out the summary from the written opening prepared by the Local Authority: Between approximately 14 and 24 May 2025 H suffered significant physical harm by way of the following inflicted injuries: a) A left sided skull vault stellate fracture located in the posterior parietal bone. b) An acute scalp haematoma over the left parietal bone, predominantly posteriorly. c) An acute extra-axial haemorrhage on the left side of her head. The injuries above were caused by blunt impact trauma with high force, point contact, with the perpetrator either striking H’s head directly with a hard object, likely with an edge or point, or forcibly throwing her against such a surface or object.[31]Dr Cardwell in his response to additional questions opined that: a) He cannot offer medical interpretations of the photographs of H as the left side of her scalp is not directly in view on either and the positioning of the child and quality of the images are poor; b) If a hand was placed on the hair and scalp of the child as part of the action of brushing her hair on the morning of 24 May 2025 it is likely that a boggy swelling, if there, would have been felt at that time; c) If the hair over the skull fracture and scalp swelling was brushed and pulled back it is quite possible that this would have been painful for the child and her carers may have noticed; d) The literature suggests that there is no minimum distance of a fall from which a fracture would not occur. Stellate patterns typically involve high force point contact and this is not described in the fall description given by Ms M when she describes H falling from the bed, Further, from a paediatric perspective, the absence of a typical immediate response of a child to an injury which has led to a skull fracture is the reason he does not think the incident as described is the likely cause of the fracture she sustained.[32]In addition to the medical evidence, the Local Authority relied on the balance of evidence in the bundle including the police evidence and their own social work evidence and assessments.

VI SUBMISSIONS

[33]I heard submissions and I have carefully considered these when coming to my conclusions and writing this judgment even if I do not specifically address all points made. Very briefly they state the following:[34]The Local Authority invited me to find that they had proven their case in respect of all of the findings sought and that either Ms M or Mr F were the perpetrator of the injuries, although the evidence could lead to a conclusion that it was the mother. The cause was either recklessness or a loss of control but not malicious or premeditated. They both knew who the perpetrator was and they had closed ranks. A supervision order was not necessary, a Child in Need plan was sufficient. Contact would be monthly, supervised and ultimately be decided by the Special Guardians.[35]Ms M’s case remained that she was not responsible for the injuries, it must therefore be Mr F. There were various reasons for her numerous lies including her admittedly shameful drug fuelled lifestyle. She wanted additional contact, her mother to be able to supervise contact and the support of a Supervision Order to support this.[36]Mr F again denied being responsible for the injuries and accepted his personal issues including drugs, alcohol, memory issues and lies. He accepted monthly contact and was neutral as to the need for a SO.[37]The Guardian focussed on the quite horrendous lived experiences of H, with the parents’ drug and alcohol abuse, appalling home conditions and their lies, especially Ms M who had very little credibility. She agreed with the Local Authority submissions that it was possible for the court to draw a conclusion that Ms M was responsible but neither parent had assisted the court and they had colluded. A Supervision Order was necessary due to the very significant risks posed by the parents and the extent of their lies and manipulations which had been hidden.

VII THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING FACT FINDING

[38]The legal framework resolving the schedule of findings sought is now well settled and I will set out a summary here. All has been applied.[39]The core principles are summarised by Baker J (as he then was) in Re JS [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam) and approved in many cases since. “36. In determining the issues at this fact finding hearing I apply the following principles. First, the burden of proof lies with the Local Authority. It is the Local Authority that brings these proceedings and identifies the findings they invite the court to make. Therefore, the burden of proving the allegations rests with the Local Authority. 37. Secondly, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (Re B [2008] UKHL 35). If the Local Authority proves on the balance of probabilities that J has sustained non-accidental injuries inflicted by one of his parents, this court will treat that fact as established and all future decisions concerning his future will be based on that finding. Equally, if the Local Authority fails to prove that J was injured by one of his parents, the court will disregard the allegation completely. As Lord Hoffmann observed in Re B:
"If a legal rule requires the facts to be proved (a 'fact in issue') a judge must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are 0 and 1." 38. Third, findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence. As Munby LJ, as he then was, observed in Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12: "
It is an elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation." 39. Fourthly, when considering cases of suspected child abuse the court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. As Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P observed in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558, [2004] 2 FLR 838 at 33:
"Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the Local Authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof." 40. Fifthly, amongst the evidence received in this case, as is invariably the case in proceedings involving allegations of non-accidental head injury, is expert medical evidence from a variety of specialists. Whilst appropriate attention must be paid to the opinion of medical experts, those opinions need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence. The roles of the court and the expert are distinct. It is the court that is in the position to weigh up expert evidence against the other evidence (see A County Council & K, D, &L [2005] EWHC 144 (Fam); [2005] 1 FLR 851 per Charles J). Thus, there may be cases, if the medical opinion evidence is that there is nothing diagnostic of non-accidental injury, where a judge, having considered all the evidence, reaches the conclusion that is at variance from that reached by the medical experts. 41. Sixth, in assessing the expert evidence I bear in mind that cases involving an allegation of shaking involve a multi-disciplinary analysis of the medical information conducted by a group of specialists, each bringing their own expertise to bear on the problem. The court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise and defers, where appropriate, to the expertise of others (see observations of King J in Re S [2009] EWHC 2115bFam). 42. Seventh, the evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms of them (see Re W and another (Non-accidental injury) [2003] FCR 346). 43. Eighth, it is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may 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 (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). 44. Ninth, as observed by Hedley J in Re R (Care Proceedings: Causation) [2011] EWHC 1715vFam: "
There has to be factored into every case which concerns a disputed aetiology giving rise to significant harm a consideration as to whether the cause is unknown. That affects neither the burden nor the standard of proof. It is simply a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the causation advanced by the one shouldering the burden of proof is established on the balance of probabilities." The court must resist the temptation identified by the Court of Appeal in R v Henderson and Others [2010] EWCA Crim 1219 to believe that it is always possible to identify the cause of injury to the child. 45. Finally, when seeking to identify the perpetrators of non-accidental injuries the test of whether a particular person is in the pool of possible perpetrators is whether there is a likelihood or a real possibility that he or she was the perpetrator (see North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003] 2 FLR 849. In order to make a finding that a particular person was the perpetrator of non-accidental injury the court must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities. It is always desirable, where possible, for the perpetrator of non-accidental injury to be identified both in the public interest and in the interest of the child, although where it is impossible for a judge to find on the balance of probabilities, for example that Parent A rather than Parent B caused the injury, then neither can be excluded from the pool and the judge should not strain to do so (see Re D (Children) [2009] 2 FLR 668, Re SB (Children) [2010] 1 FLR 1161).”[40]In Lancashire County Council v C, M and F (Children; Fact Finding Hearing) [2014] EWFC 3, Jackson J, after citing Baker J above, added this:
“To these matters, I would only add that in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record-keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural – a process that might inelegantly be described as "story-creep" may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith”
. These comments are particularly relevant in this matter where the parents’ and intervenor’s evidence and credibility are of great pertinence.[41]In Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348, King LJ re-emphasised that judges should apply the simple balance of probability standard when determining whether it is possible to identify a perpetrator from a list of those who could be responsible. In coming to a conclusion each person should be considered individually by reference to all of the evidence. Glosses such as 'straining' to identify a perpetrator should be avoided. 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.”
[42]In Y, V and B (Fact-Finding: Perpetrator) [2024] EWCA Civ 1034, Lord Justice Baker stated the legal principles to be applied when considering whether a perpetrator or pool of perpetrators can be identified. Having considered the authorities which explain how the attributability condition is S31(2) can be met by a pool finding, he stated this: 7. It is therefore possible in cases of non-accidental injury for the attributability condition to be satisfied without identifying the person who inflicted the injury. But it is well established that a court should where possible endeavour to identify the perpetrator. The standard of proof for identifying a perpetrator is the balance of probabilities: Re C (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] AC 11 ; Re S-B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] UKSC 17, [2010] 1 AC 678. […] Baroness Hale, endorsing the earlier statements in the Court of Appeal in North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003] 2 FLR 849, said (at paragraph 43):
"If the evidence is not such as to establish responsibility on the balance of probabilities it should nevertheless be such as to establish whether there is a real possibility that a particular person was involved. When looking at how best to protect the child and provide for his future, the judge will have to consider the strength of that possibility as part of the overall circumstances of the case."
[43]Paragraph 11 of Lord Baker’s judgment summaries the recent guidance on how a judge should approach the task of identifying whether someone is in the pool of perpetrators. That guidance had been given by Peter Jackson LJ in Re B (Children; Uncertain Perpetrator) [2019] EWCA Civ 575. At paragraph 46 of Re B, Peter Jackson LJ explained the purpose of the concept of the pool in these terms:
"Drawing matters together, it can be seen that the concept of a pool of perpetrators seeks to strike a fair balance between the rights of the individual, including those of the child, and the importance of child protection. It is a means of satisfying the attributable threshold condition that only arises where the court is satisfied that there has been significant harm arising from (in shorthand) ill- treatment and where the only 'unknown' is which of a number of persons is responsible. So, to state the obvious, the concept of the pool does not arise at all in the normal run of cases where the relevant allegation can be proved to the civil standard against an individual or individuals in the normal way. Nor does it arise where only one person could possibly be responsible. In that event, the allegation is either proved or it is not. There is no room for a finding of fact on the basis of 'real possibility', still less on the basis of suspicion. There is no such thing as a pool of one."
[44]Then at paragraph 49, Peter Jackson LJ gave the following guidance:
"The court should first consider whether there is a 'list' of people who had the opportunity to cause the injury. It should then consider whether it can identify the actual perpetrator on the balance of probability … Only if it cannot identify the perpetrator to the civil standard of proof should it go on to ask in respect of those on the list: "
Is there a likelihood or real possibility that A or B or C was the perpetrator or a perpetrator of the inflicted injuries?" Only if there is should A or B or C be placed into the 'pool'."[45]Finally, Lord Justice Baker reminded us in Re Y, V and B that Peter Jackson LJ in Re B added these further observations: "51. It should also be noted that in the leading cases there were two, three or four known individuals from whom any risk to the child must have come. The position of each individual was then investigated and compared. That is as it should be. To assess the likelihood of harm having been caused by A or B or C, one needs as much information as possible about each of them in order to make the decision about which if any of them should be placed in the pool. So, 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. The same may be said where the list of individuals has been whittled down to a pool of one named individual alongside others who are not similarly identified. This may be unlikely, but the present case shows that it is not impossible. Here it must be shown that there genuinely is a pool of perpetrators and not just a pool of one by default.”[46]In Re A (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230, the limitation of oral evidence was once again highlighted and the courts warned to assess all the evidence in a manner suited to the case before it, and not to inappropriately elevate one kind of evidence over another.[47]In Re H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136 the Court of Appeal reminded judges in family cases of the proper approach to witnesses who tell lies as originally set out in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. There are many reasons for this which do not denote guilt, for example, fear, shame, loyalty, panic and distress. An innocent person may lie to bolster their case. A lie should never be considered as direct proof of guilt. In criminal proceedings, to be capable of amounting to corroboration a lie must be deliberate, relate to a material issue and be motivated by a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The same principle applies here. This point was emphasized again in Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451.[48]In Re L-W (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 159 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding of failure to protect, where it had not been shown that on the particular facts of that case, a person should have identified a risk to the child. Lady Justice King stated:- “62. Failure to protect comes in innumerable guises. It often relates to a mother who has covered up for a partner who has physically or sexually abused her child or, one who has failed to get medical help for her child in order to protect a partner, sometimes with tragic results. It is also a finding made in cases where continuing to live with a person (often in a toxic atmosphere, frequently marked with domestic violence) is having a serious and obvious deleterious effect on the children in the household. The harm, emotional rather than physical, can be equally significant and damaging to a child.[49]Such findings when made in respect of a carer are of the utmost importance when it comes to assessments and future welfare considerations. A finding of failing to protect can lead a Court to conclude that the children's best interests will not be served by remaining with, or returning to, the care of that parent, even though that parent may have been wholly exonerated from having caused any physical injuries.[50]Any court conducting a Finding of Fact Hearing should be alert to the danger of such a serious finding becoming 'a bolt on' to the central issue of perpetration or of falling into the trap of assuming too easily that, if a person was living in the same household as the perpetrator, such a finding is almost inevitable. As Aikens LJ observed in Re J, "nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or another". Many households operate under considerable stress and men go to prison for serious crimes, including crimes of violence, and are allowed to return home by their longsuffering partners upon their release. That does not mean that for that reason alone, that parent has failed to protect her children in allowing her errant partner home, unless, by reason of one of the facts connected with his offending, or some other relevant behaviour on his part, those children are put at risk of suffering significant harm. Similar points were made in G-L-T (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 717.[51]I have also considered the recent case of Hayden J, Lancashire County Council v M, F, A & J [2023] EWHC 3097 where the judge found the father to be the perpetrator contrary to the submissions of the Local Authority and the Guardian after considering propensity. Hayden J addressed in detail the issue of propensity evidence and criminal matters at paragraphs 37 to 42 and in family matters from paragraphs 43 to 51. Mr Justice Hayden underlined the duty on judges to draw on the totality of a wide canvas of evidence and, where that evidence permits, to identify the perpetrator of significant harm. He reminded us that this evaluation is carried out on the balance of probabilities (nothing more, nothing less) and, while this builds in a risk of error, lawyers and judges should not shirk that obligation out of an abundance of caution. The wide canvas of evidence invariably includes a variety of evidence, including hearsay and evidence of propensity to cause harm. Drawing together that evidence and properly drawing inferences from it assists in building a picture of the family’s life at the point at which significant harm is caused. Identifying the perpetrator avoids tainting the non-perpetrator parent while also providing the foundations for constructive and safe strategies for a child’s future care.[52]The case of Re O and N (Minors) (Care: Preliminary Hearing); In re B (Minors) (Children) (Non-Accidental Injury) [2003] UKHL 18 is of course also relevant to the welfare stage if I am unable to identify the perpetrator. H would remain considered at risk even if the actual perpetrator could not be identified and my views would still be relevant in considering the welfare stage of proceedings.[53]Finally in relation to issues of fact finding there are many allegations in the very detailed schedule In this regard, I have also had in mind the recent appeal decision in Re K and G (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding) [2025] EWCA Civ 910 which addressed the fact that whilst in some fact-finding hearings, judges structured their judgment in line with a Local Authority's threshold document that set out the findings it sought, they were not obliged to do so. Provided the judge in a fact-finding hearing ensured that the parties had a fair hearing and delivered a judgment covering the ground within the known parameters of the case, it did not matter that the structure of the judgment departed from the threshold document.

VIII EVIDENTIAL AND FACT-FINDING ANALYSIS

[54]The evidence in this case reveals a deeply troubling period in the life of a very young child, whose care was entrusted to two adults living what can only be described as chaotic, disordered and drug-dominated lives. The court has had the benefit of written evidence from a range of sources, extensive medical and other records, police interviews, text messages, expert reports, and the oral testimony of the parents and independent witnesses. I have read, watched and heard all the evidence, and I remind myself at the outset that the legal burden remains unchanged: the court must identify the perpetrator of H’s injuries, if it can, applying the balance of probabilities.[55]The medical evidence itself is clear and accepted by all parties. The injuries sustained by H were inflicted, not accidental. The question is no longer how she was injured but by whom, and what conclusions the court can come to based upon the evidence and what it reveals about the behaviour and credibility of the adults responsible for her care.[56]In undertaking that exercise, I remind myself of the guidance in Lucas: lies are not, in themselves, evidence of guilt, but they may be capable of supporting adverse findings where there is material showing that the lie was deliberate and motivated by a consciousness of wrongdoing. At the same time, the court must avoid the simplistic assumption that a lying witness lies about everything; equally, a witness who lies repeatedly about central matters invites careful scrutiny. It is against that legal and evidential framework that this case must be considered. Opportunity and The Pool of Perpetrators[57]The first and essential step is to identify those who had the opportunity to cause the injury. The medical evidence does not permit a narrowing of the relevant timeframe beyond approximately ten days. The number of adults within that window is therefore necessarily limited.[58]The evidence is unequivocal that only the parents had ongoing, repeated and sufficient opportunity to cause injury. The intervenor had only a brief and discrete period of contact with H during which she cared for her in the evening while Ms M used drugs in the kitchen and toilet. Her interaction was short, closely contemporaneous with Ms M’s presence, and she credibly described the child as “fine” and showing no concerning signs. Ms M herself accepted that Ms I had only a limited opportunity, that she saw and heard nothing of concern, and Mr F did not implicate her at all. I am satisfied that Ms I should be excluded from the pool as agreed by all parties.[59]That leaves Ms M and Mr F- two adults whose lives during the relevant period were marked by mental health difficulties, instability, substance misuse, dishonesty, and interpersonal volatility. Each presents a markedly different profile, and each gave evidence that calls for detailed examination. I will address certain particular areas of this evidence but these examples are only a small part of the bigger picture. A Chaotic Household[60]When following the chronology through the text messages, police records, drug test results, and the parents’ oral testimony, a picture emerges of a household characterised substance-driven behaviour and disorganisation. Ms M was, by her own admission, using cocaine frequently during the period when she was the primary carer for H, with Mr F when he was present. She accepted that she asked a friend to lie on her behalf; she accepted that she had not been open and honest about domestic abuse; she accepted in oral evidence that her first reaction when confronted with something uncomfortable was to lie. Mr F, for his part, acknowledged heavy and longstanding substance abuse, psychotic episodes, and a pattern of violent incidents that he struggled to fully recall. H herself was fractious and teething, sometimes difficult to console and Ms M’s messages show her to be struggling and resentful at times.[61]Against this background, the court must consider the whole evidential picture, knowing that truthfulness from the parents was sadly in short supply and that memory, whether through impairment or convenience, was unreliable. The Mother’s Evidence: A Pattern of Dishonesty[62]Before delving into the detail of Ms M’s evidence, it is necessary to observe that her relationship with the truth was not merely strained; it was profoundly compromised. Her evidence, both written and oral, reads as an evolving narrative shifting in response to challenge, confrontation, and the emergence of contradictory evidence. When I was contemplating this judgment, I realised that if I addressed all of the parents’ contradictions and variations in evidence, this would be an inordinately lengthy evidence and analysis section of my judgment. In the circumstances I have chosen as examples, some of the most pertinent and striking parts to address in detail. Nevertheless all have all been considered and taken into account.[63]Ms M filed four statements, none of which are consistent with one another or with her oral evidence. She occasionally acknowledged lying to professionals, but usually only when cornered. She lied about her drug use even when faced with recent drug test results. She lied about domestic abuse and the nature of the relationship with Mr F until inconsistencies surfaced or it perhaps suited her to make such allegations. She lied about her ongoing and frequent contact with Mr F until her text messages contradicted her. She lied about who had care of H, inventing increasingly elaborate stories to shift attention away from herself and to involve others. On her own account, lying was her first instinct.[64]This pattern of dishonesty was not occasional, incidental or peripheral. It was sustained and strategic. It extended to fabricating events, rehearsing false accounts with others, and embellishing invented detail further each time she repeated it. Her evidence must therefore be approached with considerable caution. The First Major Fabrication: The Ms X Lie[65]One of the most striking examples of Ms M's dishonesty is her shocking, inappropriate and selfish manipulation of her friend, Ms X. This was not a hastily conceived lie born out of panic. It was not merely “silly” as her own mother seemed to believe. It was an elaborate, deliberately and specifically constructed fiction and she was perfectly happy to sacrifice her friend for her own needs.[66]Ms M asked Ms X to lie and say she had been caring for H when the baby “fell off the bed.” Ms M even drafted what Ms X should tell professionals, down to the detail of the sequence of events. She emphasised that Ms X’s role was to help her “make sure it wasn’t me” to professionals:
“ they literally want to ask you about the fall that’s it! Like they just want to make sure it wasn’t me xx”
M:
“They will only ring ya and ask what happened and just say I went to the shop you went change her bum and she’s so quick that she flung herself off the bed n you tried catch but she went on the floor n she was giggling and she crawled off find. That’s it and then they will probes ask how I am around H”
This wholly unacceptable lie was told consistently to medics and the police not only at the hospital but later in a police interview, even after the lie had unravelled when Ms X retracted her statement. Even when confronted with the truth, Ms M did not then retract or correct her account but initially denied making the call at all. She then became agitated, ultimately switching to a “no comment” interview. Days later, she still repeated the lie to the social worker. She still claimed in evidence that the lie was only to prevent her own mother finding out about her involvement with Mr F and that Ms X was only required to lie to the maternal grandmother, but in my judgment this was further dishonesty.[67]This episode is important because it demonstrates Ms M’s willingness to manufacture an entire alternative reality, to recruit others to sustain it, and to adapt it in response to challenge. She had even acted out a shouting telephone call to Ms X at the hospital, such were the lengths she was prepared to go. It is evidence not merely of dishonesty but of deliberate manipulation and selfishness, it is of very significant concern. The Household Environment and Mother’s Inconsistent Accounts of “Falls”[68]Throughout her statements and oral evidence, Ms M referred to a range of H’s behaviours said to account for minor bumps: H was described as throwing herself, banging her head, wedging it in the cot, flipping in the cot, falling and hitting her head, and “bumping her head about 20 times.” None of these accounts is medically plausible as a cause of the injuries. The casual way in which they were offered, and the minimisation inherent in them, reveal both an attempt at retrospective justification and an inability or unwillingness to recognise danger as well as an inability to keep H safe. Indeed, none of these alleged incidents concerned her enough to seek any medical treatment at any stage.[69]This looseness with the truth, coupled with a tendency to offer multiple incompatible narratives, fundamentally undermines the reliability of anything she says about the timing, severity or cause of the injuries. Ms M’s evidence, when assessed in its full extent, reveals a consistent pattern of deflection, minimisation, obfuscation and fabrication. It is necessary to trace this pattern not simply to criticise her but to understand the evidential landscape: her lies were not background noise. They were intimately connected to the core issues of the case, and they provide important insight into Ms M’s knowledge and behaviour around the time of the injury.[70]Her presentation of events changed regularly, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically. She gave four statements, each different in material respects, and her oral evidence diverged again. She accepted certain threshold facts when cornered, yet almost in the same breath insisted she had been honest “throughout.” The contradictions were not small or peripheral; they were about drug use, domestic abuse, contact with Mr F, the presence of injuries, her knowledge of injuries, and the circumstances of H’s care.[71]In many respects, Ms M’s evidence gives the impression of a woman attempting to outrun the truth, altering it whenever necessary, reshaping it whenever challenged, and expanding her stories to accommodate the latest emerging fact. This is well illustrated by her accounts of the parents’ relationship and domestic abuse. In earlier statements she downplayed or denied Mr F’s involvement with her and alleged abuse; later she recalled “plenty” of incidents including very late and unevidenced allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour. The timing of this shift - after she had been confronted with contradictory evidence - speaks for itself.[72]A similar pattern is seen in her evidence about drug use. She initially denied cocaine use, only to later accept that she had used it as a coping mechanism and had taken it on 22 May 2025 and other dates while caring for H. The very recent test results showed the presence of cocaine and cocaethylene from August 2025 to February 2026 at medium levels, inconsistent with her narrative of only sporadic or historic use in November/December 2025. The level rose in February. This would be concerning in any case; it is especially so given the frequency, quantity and persistence indicated by her drug tests. That she chose to challenge only those results unhelpful to her case underscores the selective nature of her honesty.[73]Perhaps the most telling illustration of Ms M’s shifting evidence concerns the alleged “falls.” She initially claimed there had been no falls of concern before the grandmother discovered the swelling late on 24 May 2025. However as the case progressed, she began to produce her catalogue of minor incidents: flipping in the cot, banging her head, wedging her head in a corner, falling but not hitting the floor, each offered hesitantly and vaguely, as if testing whether any might be accepted as a plausible explanation.[74]These incidents were never reported at the time, never raised with or even mentioned to medical professionals, never found concerning enough to seek advice, and most importantly, were not capable of causing the injuries diagnosed. The medical evidence is clear on that point. Ms M’s shifting narrative reveals several things: a willingness to latch onto any explanation that might shift attention, a failure to appreciate risk, a lack of insight into the gravity of the situation and additionally neglectful parenting. The Mother's Presentation in the Witness Box[75]Ms M’s behaviour while giving evidence also requires some comment. Though demeanour is not a basis for findings in itself, it may be relevant when considered alongside drug use, stressors, the timing of her last ingestion, and the wider behavioural pattern and inconsistencies. She began her evidence calm, confident and seemingly very thoroughly prepared. Within an hour, this had changed dramatically. She exhibited unfocused rocking, rolling eyes, glazed expression, inability to sit still, and sudden shifts between lucidity and disconnection. All advocates, also the Guardian, observed this dramatic change and the hearing had to be adjourned because she became unfit to continue. She later attributed this to hunger, nerves and ADHD medication. This explanation, however, must be seen in the context of DNA Legal results showing active cocaine ingestion leading up to and including February 2026 and her history of drug use as a “coping mechanism” during periods of stress. In context, her presentation during evidence is consistent with the unstable, unpredictable and chaotic life revealed in the evidence.[76]To be clear: I do not conclude that she was under the influence at court; that is not for this court to determine. But the episode, when considered in the full evidential context, is part of the broader picture of instability, impaired judgment and impaired reliability. It is not possible or appropriate for the court to diagnose drug use at a hearing, but behaviour consistent with stimulant intoxication, juxtaposed with a history of minimised and concealed cocaine consumption, forms an important contextual thread in understanding the reliability of her evidence. The Snapchat Message: A Critical Piece of Evidence - Mother’s Early Knowledge of the Injuries[77]One of the most significant and crucial pieces of evidence in this case, because it is both contemporaneous and spontaneous, is the Snapchat message Ms M sent to Ms I when (seeking attention and attempting further diversion) on the way to hospital:
“Yeah she’s gotta go hospital she’s got a big fluid lump… on front of her head. Mum noticed this morning and it’s got bigger through the day.”
[78]The importance of this message cannot be overstated. It directly contradicts Ms M’s case that she knew and saw nothing amiss on 24 May 2025. This message sits in stark contradiction to Ms M’s central claim, repeated throughout these proceedings, that she saw no injury until her own mother noticed a swelling later that evening. The maternal grandmother’s evidence was consistent, credible and clear: she saw no swelling until she bathed H in the evening, and she was the one who insisted they go to hospital immediately not Ms M as she claimed.[79]Most significantly, it aligns squarely with the medical explanation that the swelling would develop “over minutes to hours” following the injury. Ms M’s assertion that she simply “lies a lot” when confronted with this inconsistency does not diminish its weight. In fact, it heightens the significance of her earlier statement, which bears the hallmarks of candour, a spontaneous message to a friend, sent on the trip to hospital and before professional involvement and scrutiny had been engaged. She may have been unaware of the full significance of the injuries. This message strongly suggests that Ms M had seen or been aware of the injuries earlier in the day and before her own mother felt the lump. It also attempts to involve the grandmother in the factual matrix as having been the one noticing the lump in the morning not the evening, which is clearly not true.[80]This message therefore cannot be dismissed as incidental dishonesty. It is a direct statement, contemporaneous with events, which suggests earlier knowledge of the specific injuries suffered by H. It is impossible to reconcile Ms M’s later account with this earlier one. It is particularly notable and relevant that Ms M does not simply mention a bump or injury, but rather specifically a “big fluid lump” which is exactly what the medics at the hospital record and then Dr Cardwell describes in detail some months thereafter. The timing of a recent injury “discovered” early on 24 May falls squarely within that envisaged by Dr Cardwell’s expert opinion and follows an evening/ night where Mr F had been released from custody, having been deprived of both prescribed and illicit drugs for almost two days, Ms M was desperately seeking cocaine, Mr F actively denying taking the same (which I reject) and the flat was in such a significant state of disarray, including broken items and bottles, the following day, that it needed to be tidied before the police attended. The Mother's Attempts to Widen the Pool[81]A further emergent pattern in Ms M’s evidence is her repeated attempts to draw additional individuals into the pool of potential perpetrators.[82]We have already seen this with the false accusations against Ms X and the involvement of her own mother. The same approach appears in her interactions with Ms I. She messaged others suggesting that Ms I had been alone with H during the critical period, creating the impression of opportunity where none existed. I consider that this was another clear attempt to divert attention away from herself and to create confusion around the timeline.[83]This conduct is revealing. It is not merely the act of someone unsure; it is the act of someone attempting to cast doubt, to obscure, to muddy the waters deliberately and to potentially blame others. In my judgment, these attempts to widen the pool add to the weight of evidence that Ms M was actively seeking to deflect responsibility. The Mother’s Complex Lies and Fabrication[84]When considering Ms M’s evidence it is clear that her lies were often unusually elaborate. They were not impulsive or ill-thought-out. They often included extraneous detail designed to lend credibility or to set the stage, a common trait when people are telling lies. When describing the fabricated fall to the police, for example, she included even the detail of what she bought at the shop and where she kept her phone. She also added emotional flourishes - anger, indignation, frustration - intended to bolster her false narrative and engender sympathy.[85]She also invented self-serving explanations, such as suggesting that during the [name] pub incident she was merely, and co-incidentally at the exact same time, “trying to get something, like wipes” when suspected of hiding the bag of heroin. Her capacity for invention, particularly when confronted with professional suspicion, is a striking feature of this case.[86]What this demonstrates is not simply a person who just lies reactively (which she also does) but a person who engages in carefully constructed deceit: deceit which is planned, detailed, and sustained. Her own mother accepted that she had always told lies and exaggerated. Cumulative Effect of these issues on Credibility[87]The cumulative effect of Ms M’s dishonesty, inconsistency and manipulation is profound. Her evidence is so compromised that, save where independently corroborated, it cannot be relied upon. This is not due to cognitive difficulty or confusion; it is due to deliberate, sustained falsification of material facts. As was accurately stated by counsel for the Guardian, she is both “egocentric” and “a consummate liar.” The evidence supports the court’s finding that she is, in truth, a compulsive liar.[88]Her willingness to involve innocent individuals in her false narratives, to embroider her accounts with detail, to adapt her story each time she was challenged, and to maintain lies even in the face of incontrovertible evidence leaves her evidence in tatters. The Father: A Pattern of Instability, Evasion, and Partial Truths[89]Mr F’s evidence stands in contrast to that of Ms M. He is not a reliable historian, but nor is he a calculated manipulator of fact in the same way. His dishonesty is real, sometimes significant, but it is generally clumsy, inconsistent, and reflective of a life marked by chronic addiction, poor mental health, and a tendency to minimise or avoid difficult truths rather than to construct elaborate fictions. Mr F was a tragic character, it was clear that life for him has been extremely harsh and challenging and to his credit he accepts this and many of his shortcomings. He showed very clear and obvious pain, upset and concern for H in contrast to Ms M who appeared a colder and more unemotional person whilst giving evidence. Mr F was often upset and almost inconsolable, his overwhelming love for H and his wish for a better future for her than himself were honest and clear.[90]He accepted, both in his written and oral evidence, that his memory is poor owing to extensive drug use, addiction and mental health difficulties. He acknowledged that he sometimes experienced psychotic episodes during which he would remember nothing afterwards. This does not excuse his dishonesty, but it does contextualise it. Most of his untruths have the flavour of someone attempting to shield himself from criticism without fully grasping the implications of what he is saying.[91]Mr F denied owning the drugs in the bag he was arrested with at the pub and denied being either a violent person or domestically abusive. Yet his own admissions and the evidence of incidents paint a very different picture. On 17 June 2025 he threatened to “kick and smash” a pub staff member’s head in and spat at them. On 31 May 2025 he was arrested for threatening to kill Ms M and her mother. He appeared to have no recollection of these events, attributing his behaviour to periods when he had “completely lost it.”[92]Mr F’s temper - when fuelled by substance abuse or mental instability - was not theoretical. On 2 February 2026 he threatened to stab another resident, armed with a broken pool cue. The CCTV footage and photograph corroborate the reality of his violent outbursts. His ability to “walk away” from trouble, which he claimed, is not supported by the evidence.[93]In relation to drug use, Mr F was less evasive than Ms M but still minimised at times, such as after his release from custody. He denied knowingly using heroin, appeared in denial about his withdrawal symptoms, and generally understated the some of the problems associated with his substance use.[94]Yet, unlike Ms M, he did not exhibit the same level of intricate planning in his untruths. Rather, he regularly claimed to not remember events at all, or provided partial, muddled accounts that shifted each time he was confronted with inconsistencies. This is best illustrated by the differences between his first and second statements. His second statement, also filed many months late and explained on the basis of “improved memory”, was materially different from the first. Neither statement can be treated as contemporaneous or dependable.[95]He admitted that he would have lied if it meant H would not be removed from Ms M. He admitted to tidying the flat before professionals or police arrived, removing bottles, smashed glass and plates, conduct entirely consistent with concealment. He admitted that he had no explanation for why he did not contact Ms M or the hospital for several hours after learning of the injury. His explanations—that he had no money or phone, that he needed to “clear his head,” that he was “coming to terms” with the situation ring hollow. His avoidance suggests knowledge, discomfort, avoidance and an unwillingness to confront or assist professionals while the circumstances of the injury were being examined.[96]Mr F also failed to ask any questions at all about H’s condition, a striking omission for a parent learning of a serious head injury. This, too, supports the inference that he already knew more than he claimed and wished to distance himself from what was unfolding.[97]His claim that Ms M was under the influence of drugs and alcohol when H was injured is also revealing. He mentioned this at the hospital discharge meeting in November 2025, implying knowledge of the circumstances even then, despite claiming elsewhere that he knew nothing. Whether this reflects collusion, recollection, or an attempt to deflect blame is difficult to determine, but the inconsistency is telling.[98]Taken as a whole, Mr F’s evidence lacks coherence but is not wholly devoid of sincerity. He demonstrated visible distressed when speaking of H and appeared, at times, genuinely remorseful about the life he had been leading. But remorse does not equate to reliability. His narrative is simply too inconsistent, too incomplete, and too heavily marred by avoidance to be relied upon without corroboration. Independent Witnesses: A Clear Contrast[99]Ms I: In marked contrast to the parents, the evidence of Ms I was measured, balanced and notably credible. She gave one statement, consistent throughout, and was also interviewed by the police. She described the pub incident, the condition of Ms M’s home, and her limited involvement with H that evening. She saw and heard nothing that would indicate injury at the time, 22 May 2025.[100]Her demeanour was steady and thoughtful. She did not overreach her evidence. She accepted limitations in her knowledge and resisted being drawn into speculation. Her evidence was particularly persuasive in light of her own history with public law proceedings: she understood the seriousness of these events and approached her evidence accordingly. She bore no resentment despite being wrongly implicated by the mother. Her explanation of Ms M’s attempts to suggest she had sole care of the child on 24 May was both compelling and credible and is accepted by the court as is the balance of her evidence. She was impressive.[101]Maternal Grandmother: The grandmother’s evidence was equally clear. She described discovering the swelling while bathing H and immediately insisting on hospital attendance. She was fully consistent with her written statement. She contradicted Ms M’s Snapchat claim that the swelling had been noticed by her in the morning, stating firmly that she had not seen it and that it was not visible until palpated. Her shock at learning of Ms M’s drug use further underscored her credibility. She struck the court as a straightforward, reliable witness, although of course loyal. Final Analysis: Collusion, Concealment and Persisting Uncertainty[102]The evidence in this case paints a portrait of two parents living in crisis, whose chaotic and substance-driven existence created conditions ripe for accident, neglect or impulsive harm. Both had opportunity to injure H during the relevant ten-day period. Neither provided a coherent or reliable narrative of events. Ms M, in particular, provided a kaleidoscope of false accounts, each adjusted to meet the challenges posed by the evidence. Mr F, meanwhile, provided incomplete, inconsistent and often self-serving accounts, punctuated by significant gaps in memory and marked avoidance. Several themes emerge: 1. The Mother’s Dishonesty Ms M’s dishonesty was profound, sustained and deliberate. Her lies were detailed, constructed and deployed with intent. The Snapchat message, the fabricated stories involving Ms X, Ms I and her own mother, the evolving fall narratives, and her minimisation of drug use collectively create a compelling picture of a woman who knew more than she was prepared to admit. 2. The Father’s Avoidance and Instability Mr F’s behaviour surrounding the discovery of the injury - his absence, his failure to enquire, his tidying of the flat - suggests awareness and an effort to distance himself. His violent outbursts, drug use, and mental instability further complicate any attempt to identify him as a wholly innocent bystander. 3. The Injury Was Known to Both Parents by the Morning of 24 May 2025 The evidence, particularly the Snapchat message, supports a finding that Ms M knew of the injury earlier than she claims. Mr F’s avoidance and absence support the conclusion that he also knew of the injury before the grandmother discovered it. 4. Collusion Perhaps the most striking theme is the likelihood of collusion. Both parents gave accounts that were incomplete, inconsistent, and implausible. Neither accused the other. Neither showed genuine curiosity about what had happened to their child and apparently never asked the other if they were to blame. Both lied to professionals. Both attempted to remove themselves from scrutiny. These are not the behaviours of two innocent parents independently recounting events. They are the behaviours of two individuals with shared knowledge and shared fear. I am satisfied that they “stuck together,” deliberately concealing the truth. Conclusion: The Pool Remains Two[103]Despite the troubling weight of evidence pointing towards Ms M - her lies, her behaviour, her early knowledge - I cannot, on the balance of probabilities, identify her as the perpetrator. Likewise, Mr F’s opportunity, behaviour, avoidance, and instability leave open the real possibility that he may have been involved.[104]The evidence does not allow me to exclude either parent. Nor does it allow me to positively identify one. The pool therefore remains two: the mother and the father.[105]I make the following specific findings, recording that the Local Authority have satisfied the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities:(a) H’s injuries were non accidental and were caused by blunt impact trauma with high force, point contact, with the perpetrator either striking H’s head directly with a hard object, likely with an edge or point, or forcibly throwing her against such a surface or object. There is a real possibility that the injuries happened on 23-24 May when both parents were present following Mr F’s release from custody. This assessment is based upon Ms M’s Snapchat message and the evidence of the discovery of the injuries by the maternal grandmother on 24 May and the timing is entirely in accordance with the medical evidence of Dr Cardwell.(b) Both parents had the opportunity to cause the injuries.(c) The perpetrator was aware that they had caused significant injuries to H due to her distress reaction to the same. The perpetrator of the injuries has lied about how the injuries were caused to conceal the truth about the circumstances in which they were inflicted.The perpetrator of the injuries did not seek immediate, or any, medical attention for H.(d) Neither parent, despite knowledge / involvement, sought medical attention for H either at the time of the injuries or later, if not present and informed afterwards. Both thus failed to protect her.(e) Both parents were aware of the injuries before H went to her grandmother’s house on 24 May and failed to seek help.(f) Both colluded to conceal the truth and mislead professionals.(g) Neither parent can be excluded from the pool of perpetrators.(h) The mother lied to the doctors/others at the hospital (finding 8 in its entirety) In summary, I make the findings as sought by the Local Authority, but without specifically identifying the perpetrator.

IX THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING WELFARE ISSUES

[106]The law that I must apply is contained in the Children Act 1989 (the Act), and H’s welfare are my paramount consideration. Under Section 31 of the Act, there is a threshold which the Local Authority must pass before the court can make the sort of order that it seeks, being a final care order that effectively removes H from the care and control of her parents. That threshold is that a court may only make a care order or a supervision order if it is satisfied that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to her if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to her.[107]That threshold under Section 31 is passed in this case based on the facts which I have found regarding the injury. The making of a Special Guardianship Order is no longer opposed by Ms M, and Mr F now agrees with the Local Authority’s plans. The outstanding issues were whether there should be a Supervision Order and the level of contact. Despite this agreement, since this matter was contested by Ms M until towards the end of this hearing, with her still being clear that she did not agree with the proposed contact arrangements and was possibly still seeking rehabilitation at some point in the future, I consider it important that I should fully review the welfare position and not simply record the agreement, so a detailed analysis can be available in the future. Further, there is not an agreed threshold so I need to address that and make appropriate findings.[108]I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not, by other members of their family. The state should not interfere in family life so as to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare. Although there is no plan for adoption of H, I have regard to all the relevant case law and in particular paragraphs 26-28 of Re B-S (citing Re B) which I summarise as follows: a) The interests of children include being brought up by their parents unless the overriding requirements of their welfare make that not possible; b) It is necessary to consider all alternative options and explore and attempt alternative solutions having regard to the powers of the court which range from no order to the making of an adoption order; c) The court’s assessment of the parents’ capacity must take into account the support and assistance the authorities would offer. “…before making an adoption order…the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities (or others) providing the requisite assistance and support” [citing Re B paragraph 105].[109]In reaching my decisions as to the Special Guardianship Order, Supervision Order and contact I have considered that H’s welfare throughout her life is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I must consider the Article 8 rights of the adults and the child as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the child’s rights and be proportionate.[110]I am also conscious that I must have in mind the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of children.[111]Within Section 1 of the Act there is a checklist of factors which provides the final source of guidance for the court, regarding features to be considered when the court weighs up what order it should make in respect of the children. I will address the relevant facts which help me undertake that balancing exercise.[112]It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted. In YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 967 it was said:
“Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and… everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.”
[113]I am invited by the Local Authority, supported by the Guardian, and conceded by the parents to make a Special Guardianship Order in favour of the maternal aunt and uncle. I have considered the useful guidance in Re P-S (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 1407. The law as to Special Guardianship is set out in Section 14A of the Children Act 1989. I give credit to Ms M for finally recognising that she is unable to care for her child but it is important that she should appreciate that on the basis of all of the evidence which I have seen and the findings which I have made, I would not have approved a plan of rehabilitation to her in any event, nor would I have made a final care order. If H was made subject to a full care order, she would remain a looked after a child. H is only approximately eighteen months old, and a plan of long-term foster care would require her to have ongoing professional involvement until she is eighteen. This is a long time to be subjected to professional scrutiny. H ideally needs permanency and a forever family of her own. Given the findings which I have made in relation to the injury, ongoing drug use and welfare issues as well as my very poor impression of Ms M, there is no prospect of any rehabilitation within any suitable timescale for H

X THE THRESHOLD AND THE WELFARE ISSUES

[114]I will firstly address the threshold findings as sought by the Local Authority. Mr F failed to respond to the threshold until December 2025 despite being ordered to do so. His one statement with response to threshold predates the final schedule of findings. I make the following specific findings, based upon the whole of the evidence and recording that the Local Authority have satisfied the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities:[115]ALLEGATIONS 10 – 11: POOR MENTAL HEALTH: Mr F admits a history of poor mental health but does not accept that he has put H at harm. The evidence throughout the bundle shows that paragraph 10 of the findings is easily established. Ms M also accepts having mental health issues but states that she now manages this with prescribed medication. There is ample evidence to establish finding 11 as drafted.[116]ALLEGATIONS 12 – 16: SUBSTANCE MISUSE: Mr F admits being an addict, both alcohol and drugs, for a long time. His hospital admissions and treatment are documented in the bundle. I am satisfied that the police found a bag of heroin on H’s pram on 23 May 2025. Ms M accepts having issues with drugs and alcohol and the evidence shows that she lied and denied this. I am satisfied that she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol on 22 May 2025, cocaine and consumption of alcohol being accepted. Each likely exacerbated/impacted the effect of the other. They both continue to misuse substances, Mr F by admission and Ms M by test results despite denial. These findings are made.[117]ALLEGATIONS 17 – 20: DOMESTIC ABUSE: Ms M accepts a history of engaging in domestically abusive relationships as well as incidents between her and Mr F. She also admits prioritising herself on occasions. Mr F denies being domestically abusive to Ms M but accepted that the relationship was toxic, although he failed to say how. His arrest for threats to kill, and breaching bail to attend at Ms M’s however, contradict his denial. It may be that he lacks understanding of the proper concept of abuse but nevertheless his behaviour was abusive. I am satisfied that there was a physical incident on 29 January 2025, most likely involving both of them high on drugs and alcohol, and that Ms M was injured. I do not need to decide how. They have both accepted that H’s needs were not prioritised. I am entirely satisfied that due to their behaviours, these criteria and established and the findings are made[118]ALLEGATION 21: GENERAL: This is an entirely factual statement and indisputable, with Mr F being homeless again in late 2025. This finding is made. WELFARE ANALYSIS[119]I will now consider H’s welfare and her best interests. H is too young to express her own wishes and feelings verbally. She would most likely wish to be brought up by one of her birth parents. She is dependent on her carers for everything. She has been protected from harm since being in the care of her current carers since her discharge from hospital. If I do not make orders which sufficiently protect her, this failure would leave her exposed to future harm from the matters which I have set out in relation to the threshold. The flipside of course is that the Local Authority’s plan, which would have H remain placed with her current carers, exposes her to the possible long-term harm which can flow from being separated from the care of a parent, and in particular, the harm that that can do to a child’s sense of their own identity.[120]Her needs; physical, emotional, educational are essentially those of any other child of her age, having regard to her age and characteristics. She needs attention to be paid to her physical and emotional health, she needs to be protected from harm, she needs to have opportunities to socialise and learn, and commitment from her carers to provide her with what she needs for the whole of her childhood.[121]Given the injuries H suffered in the care of her mother and father she is at risk of suffering further physical harm. Without an adequate explanation, and in view of their both remaining in the pool, failing to be honest and assist the court, failing to seek treatment and their collusion, she would remain at risk[122]The order which is sought in relation to H is a profound order which would result in the loss for her of a chance to be brought up by her own mother or father at this time. To make such an order I must be satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate to the gravity of the harm which H would suffer if I do not. I have to be satisfied that all avenues have been explored to allow her to be cared for by her mother or father, including with the provision of appropriate services. A placement remaining with her present relative carer with whom she has lived since May 2025 is in my judgment the only available and suitable option for H. She will have the benefit of remaining within her family long term which is a great positive. She will have regular contact with her parents. SUPERVISION ORDER OR CHILD IN NEED PLAN?[123]Where I disagree with the Local Authority is in relation to the need for a Supervision Order. This is sought by Ms M and the guardian. In considering the appropriate legal framework for H’s future care, I remind myself that a Special Guardianship Order is intended to provide a secure and enduring arrangement in which the special guardian exercises an enhanced degree of parental responsibility without the need for continuing state intervention. An SGO made alone therefore reflects the court’s confidence that the carers can meet the child’s needs safely and independently, with any necessary support being provided on a voluntary basis. The addition of a Supervision Order, by contrast, introduces an element of ongoing oversight by the Local Authority and is only justified where there are specific, identifiable matters requiring short-term monitoring or structured assistance that cannot adequately be addressed through informal support. An SGO combined with a SO should remain exceptional: it must be proportionate, time-limited, and grounded in clear evidence that the placement - while safe - is still developing and requires temporary professional involvement. Where such necessity is not established, the permanence and autonomy inherent in an SGO are best preserved by allowing the order to stand alone.[124]Having determined that a Special Guardianship Order in favour of the current carers is both necessary and proportionate to secure H’s long-term welfare, I must consider whether an SGO alone is sufficient to safeguard her immediate and ongoing needs, or whether the addition of a time-limited Supervision Order is required.[125]In this case, for the following reasons, I am satisfied that a Supervision Order is not merely desirable but necessary and that this is an exceptional case. 1. The parents continue to present significant, active and dynamic risks which require professional oversight Both parents remain in the pool of perpetrators for a serious non-accidental injury to their daughter. Further, I have found that both were aware of the injury earlier than they claimed, both failed to seek help, and both colluded to conceal the circumstances, demonstrating a profound and ongoing lack of insight and honesty. In addition, both parents continue to struggle with substance misuse, with Mr F openly acknowledging ongoing addiction and Ms M continuing to return positive tests for cocaine despite her denial. The combination of ongoing drug use, lack of insight, extensive dishonesty, minimisation of risk, and evidence of collusion creates a volatile, shifting risk profile which cannot simply be assumed to stabilise following the making of an SGO. A Supervision Order therefore ensures continued professional oversight during the critical transitional period after the SGO is made. 2. The Special Guardians will need structured professional support to manage the risks posed by the parents The carers have demonstrated commendable care for H, but the complexities of this case mean that they are likely to face pressure from both parents, whether emotional, practical or through attempts to manipulate contact or undermine boundaries. Given the parents’ established pattern of persistent dishonesty, boundary-breaking, drug-fuelled volatility, domestic abuse, and collusion, the carers will require a clear, professional framework to maintain safe and appropriate boundaries, manage parental behaviour, respond to any attempts to destabilise the placement, and access guidance when difficulties arise. An SGO alone provides authority but not active support. A Child in Need plan will not offer the same level of support and commitment and may not be taken as seriously by the parents as an ongoing court order with statutory oversight. A Supervision Order obliges the Local Authority to advise, assist and befriend the carers and the child during the first year of the permanent arrangement, support which, in this case, is essential to placement stability. 3. Contact carries inherent safeguarding concerns that require oversight I have found that the parents have repeatedly lied about core safeguarding matters, have concealed serious risks, and have previously rehearsed or invented false accounts involving other adults. Contact therefore carries inherent risks, particularly with Ms M, of emotional manipulation, potential attempts at undermining the placement, inappropriate disclosures, boundary-breaking, or attempts to pressure the carers. Although contact will reduce to monthly in due course, its safe operation requires ongoing supervision and a structured monitoring framework that cannot be achieved through an SGO alone, even with a CIN plan. A Supervision Order ensures that contact arrangements develop safely, the Local Authority can intervene if concerning parental behaviour emerges, and the special guardians are not left unsupported in managing difficult dynamics. 4. The transition into permanence requires monitoring given the complexity of the case and the parents’ presentation This case has involved very serious injuries, a long period of deception, drug-fuelled and chaotic parenting, extensive collusion, inconsistent engagement with services, and ongoing risks related to mental health and substance misuse. Given these factors, the move from interim arrangements to permanent placement is a critical juncture. It would be disproportionate, and unsafe, to withdraw statutory professional oversight at precisely the point where the current carers assume lifelong responsibility. A Supervision Order supports the transition, stabilises the arrangement, ensures early detection of emerging issues, and embeds therapeutic or support services required for H’s ongoing recovery from early trauma. 5. The need for the Local Authority to remain involved to ensure support plans are implemented Given the parents’ behaviours, sustained monitoring of parental lifestyle and behaviours, with supported and supervised contact and advice to the special guardians during adjustment, with safeguarding oversight, it is necessary that the Local Authority’s obligations are placed on a statutory footing. An SGO alone would rely on voluntary cooperation and discretionary support.A Supervision Order compels active involvement, ensures professional accountability, and prevents drift at a time when structured oversight is essential.[126]CONCLUSION In light of the parents’ continuing placement in the pool of perpetrators, their collusion, deceit and ongoing substance misuse, the risks associated with contact, the level of support which may be required by the special guardians, the complexity and seriousness of the background to the case, and the need for structured monitoring during the transition to permanence, I am satisfied that a Supervision Order for 12 months is necessary and proportionate to safeguard H’s welfare and to support the Special Guardianship arrangement. It provides the minimum level of statutory oversight required to secure the placement, ensure safe contact, and address the dynamic risks posed by the parents. CONTACT[127]Contact with Ms M and Mr F is regularly taking place, supervised by the Local Authority. Ms M’s contact is presently 3 times each week for 2.5 hours. Mr F’s contact has been inconsistent. The Local Authority propose that this should change to monthly following a reduction plan, supervised by the Local Authority until wider family members can take over responsibility. Ms M initially sought for the contact to continue at a high level. This was, in my judgment, wholly unrealistic. The plan is not for H to be placed with her carers with a view for reconciliation to Ms M at some unspecified point in the future. If I approve the plans for H, and I do, then this is to be her final placement for the rest of her childhood. She needs to be aware that this is her permanent home, to invest in the same and to be allowed to settle. There needs to be a balance between maintaining her relationships with her birth parents and her need to settle and develop meaningful and natural relationships with her primary carers, and to not be tied down to a restrictive timetable of visits. A continuation of contact at anything like the level during proceedings would be counter productive for H and would unsettle her.[128]The Guardian agrees with the plans for contact to be monthly. The Local Authority and then the special guardians will be able to make suitable arrangements for contact as H grows and her needs change and such decisions would ultimately then be left in their hands. I accept that monthly contact is the appropriate level to balance her time, relationships and need for security and routine. Any change can be dealt with by agreement in the future at the discretion of the Special Guardians.

XI FINAL DECISION

[129]I record that the Threshold is crossed and make a Special Guardianship Order to the current carers approving the plans for living arrangements and contact. I make a Supervision Order for 12 months, not for the reasons Ms M truly seeks, being to support the development of her contact, but rather to protect H and her carers against both of these parents. I do not make any contact order. It is not necessary. HHJ Hesford Date 10 April 2026 APPENDIX – SPECIAL MEASURES 1. Both parents and Ms I will attend at 9am on the first day of the hearing and have the opportunity to familiarise themselves, separately, with the court room. They will be allowed to sit in the witness box and will be shown where others will also sit. 2. The parents and Ms I will meet with the court usher and be given the opportunity to practice the oath/affirmation whilst in the witness box. 3. The parents and Ms I will be given the option to be introduced to all legal representatives prior to the hearing commencing. 4. Screens will be made available to ensure that Miss M and Mr F cannot see each other when in the court room. Should Ms I require similar measures then this will be made available. 5. The witnesses are aware that the court has to determine if any of them have caused the injuries to H or know how the injuries were caused and by whom. It will be explained to the parents and Ms I by their respective Counsel that they are going be asked questions exploring (but not limited to): a) the days leading up to H’s injuries and what was going on in the home at that time; b) the different accounts that have been provided to professionals; c) the use of drugs and alcohol; d) their relationship and Mr. F’s involvement with the care of H; e) whether they hurt H; f) whether they know who did hurt her. 6. The parents and Ms I will be offered regular breaks during their oral evidence. 7. Advocates will limit the use of unnecessary language and phrases and will use simple and short sentences and avoid technical language. 8. Advocates will speak slowly and avoid moving topics or raising questions too quickly. 9. Parents and Ms I will be encouraged to ask for clarification if they do not understand any information or question put to them. 10. Miss M is permitted to have a supportive friend or family member with her in court whilst she gives her evidence. 11. Mr F is permitted to have a mental health professional or supportive friend or family member with him in court whilst he gives his evidence.