The Local Authority v C, D & E [2025] EWFC 58 (B) (18 February 2025)

(iii) Findings-of-fact in these cases must be based on evidence, that can include inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation.

(iv) 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.

(v) Amongst the evidence received in this case, as 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. There may be cases where the judge, having considered all the evidence, reaches the conclusion that is a variance from that reached by the medical experts. Experts do not decide cases, judges do. The expert's function is to advise the judge. The judge is fully entitled to accept or reject expert opinion. If the judge decides to reject an expert's advice, he must have a sound basis upon which to do so and must explain why the advice is being rejected. The Court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise.

(vi) 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.

(vii) It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. A witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. In addition, the fact that the witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything. An innocent person may lie to bolster their case.

(viii) A lie should never be considered as direct proof of guilt. To be capable of amounting to corroboration, a lie must be deliberate. It must relate to a material issue and be motivated by a realisation of guilt and fear of the truth. In cases where repeated accounts given of events surrounding injury, 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 that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Lies are told for other reasons, they include faulty recollection, or confusion at times of stress, or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or where there may be inaccuracy or mistaken record keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the account. The 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.

(ix) 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. 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.

(x) The Court should first consider whether there is a list of people who had the opportunity to cause the injury. 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] EWCA Civ 575, he or she should consider whether there is a real possibility that each individual on the list inflicted the injury in question. Only if there is, should a person be placed into the pool.

(xi) Failure to protect comes in innumerable guises. Such findings are of the utmost importance when it comes to assessments and future welfare considerations. 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 a person who was living in the same household as the perpetrator and that such a finding is almost inevitable.

(xii) When considering the whole canvas, it is helpful to consider the risk and protective factors identified by Peter Jackson J (as he then was) in Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41.

In order to deal with the issues, I heard oral evidence from the mother, D, and E.

I also had the trial bundle and received very helpful, written closing submissions on behalf of all of the parties.

My Findings

E pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent on (redacted). The basis for his plea was that he was recruited by organised criminals to drive a car from X to Y and back. He did not get out of the car and played no direct part in the attempted violence at the Y property. He was given a prison sentence of over 50 months.

The mother began associating with E whilst he was in prison, prior to his release in redacted 2022.

At the time proceedings were issued, the mother was the primary carer for both A and B. A spent time with his father, including overnight and E spent time with B.

The mother has previously been in a relationship with another man linked to organised crime.

E has five other children to three different partners. He accepts that two partners have made allegations of harassment against him. He disputes that there were three. I do not consider it to be necessary and proportionate to make findings on that issue. He does not see his other children.

It is a condition of his license that he is not to have contact with children without prior approval from Children's Social Care.

E has been assessed by probation as a high risk to adults and a medium risk to children.

E did not inform his probation officer or Children's Social Care of the mother's pregnancy with B, nor his birth. He had contact with B following birth without prior approval from Children's Social Care.

I am satisfied that he concealed the fact that he was known as G, in order to hide his true identity from the Local Authority. He was also initially dishonest about his criminal history.

Injuries to B

On 26 February 2024, B suffered a complex branching fracture to the skull, involving the right parietal bone extending from the right coronal suture to involve both his superior sagittal suture as well as his right lambdoid suture. Beneath the fracture there was a subdural bleed and an acute subarachnoid bleed overlying the right side of his brain and right thrombosed cortical vein.

This was caused by a significant impact injury to the right side of his head. This was a blunt-force trauma to the right side of his head.

He also suffered friction forces to the left side of his head with or without blunt force trauma to the side.

It is unlikely, in my judgment, that those injuries were caused by A. I do not consider that there is a real possibility that he caused the injuries.

The injuries were caused by either the mother or E.

I am unable to say, on a balance of probability which of them has caused the injuries. Each of them is in the pool of possible perpetrators. In each case, there is a real possibility that they inflicted the injuries in question.

It is likely that each of them know that A did not cause the injuries and whichever of them caused the injuries, the other knows of that fact. They have conspired to blame A for the injuries.

My Reasons

In my holistic evaluation of all of the evidence in this case, I have borne in mind the positives that can be put forward for the mother and E, and those factors that support their case that neither of them has caused the injuries to B.

I bear in mind the evidence contained in the mother's parenting assessment at C152:

"(D) and (E), (H) and (J) all praise (C)'s relationship with A, and they feel she does a great deal with him towards supporting his development. It has been noted in contact reports that (C) as well as (E) are very attentive to both (A) and (B)'s needs and that they respond to their needs in an appropriate manner. (C) has been seen to look after (A)'s needs during contact, also with the occasional concern of (A) running off and into the road.

(C) has had (A) in her care as his primary carer for several years without issue or reports to Children's Services. Having had (A) in her care, she has fought for him to be assessed for an EHCP and other relevant services. She is aware of his needs. Where (B) is concerned, this also appears to be the case, she is seen to be loving and caring.

However, she can also appear intimidated by her own perception of power imbalances when she is being observed, at times. (C) is attentive to the needs of both (A) and (B) individually when she needs to care for (A) and (B) together. This needs to be further assessed as this raises questions as to whether she can provide appropriate and thorough care for both children at once. It is the perception of the social worker that she will require some support in this area.

(C), (E) as well as (D) and (H) all seem to have an excellent hands-on approach with the children and are good at keeping them stimulated during family time sessions. They have all discussed diet and (A)'s very short attention span and the children's basic care appropriately.

It is the view of (D) and (H), (J) as well as (E) that (C) should have the children returned to her care, if deemed safe to do so by medical professionals and the Court.

It is clear that (C) loves (A) and (B) a great deal and that she and her two sons have a lovely connection and attachment with her. (A) receives a great deal of emotional warmth from his parents and stepparents too, as well as extended family. His is very much cared for and loved. They all display emotional warmth towards (A). He has been seen to run to each of them on contacts and greet them with a big hug and cuddle-kiss. (B) is also very much loved by his mum and dad. He is a happy and well-adjusted child who is doing fantastically well in the care of his auntie.

Given that there has been limited previous Children's Services involvement with (C) and this is, to a large extent, a single-issue case. Although there have been plenty of positives in the assessment of (C), there are areas where she needs or will need a great deal of support. The support would surround her support network, parenting skills, particularly in the area of supervision, and possibly greater involvement with services such as Autism Together or neurodivergence support.

The mother has not been in trouble with the police, nor is there any evidence that she misuses drugs or alcohol. There is no evidence of predisposition on the mother's part to harm (B)".

In terms of A, he is described as boisterous and climbing on furniture in his developmental review reported by K. He tended to be rough and boisterous. The parents gave evidence that A likes to climb.

In the nursery report at C62, it is reported that A's interactions with his peers is often physical, and he will push them out of the way, that is not able to communicate what he wants to do. He is interested in other children and babies crying but does not know why they are crying. He likes to be close to their face and can often increase their crying because of this.

D, E, and the mother all said that they were aware that A could climb over the baby gate, put at the entrance to his bedroom. The mother said that she had bought a bigger one and asked E to put it up two or three times, but he had not done so.

D gave evidence that he was aware that A could dress himself to a limited extent, pulling on trousers, pullup nappies, and a t-shirt.

K observed A in the family home on 10 June 2024 and observed him to walk up and down the stairs without assistance, using one hand on the wall for support. She observed him carrying toys up and down the stairs and one very large toy by dragging its tail. She concluded that A would have the capacity to climb over the baby gate that was in place at the time, that he could carry B for a short period of time.

Having initially said that she did not think that A could remove the babygrow or vest and nappy, she did then revise the opinion to say that she did not think he had the capability to removed B's vest.

It is suggested that the second account given by the mother, and supported by E, is a complicated account involving A undertaking a series of tasks and it is suggested that if a fabricated account was being given by the mother, it would have been a more plausible account.

It is also suggested that there was no reason for the mother to lie about E's presence overnight from 25^th to 26 February, as that could possibly absolve her from the blame.

Whilst the Local Authority rely upon the criminal antecedents of E, and suggest that he has an extensive criminal history, it is right to acknowledge that there is no evidence, in my judgment, to support a finding that E has a propensity to cause injury to children. I do not consider that the conviction in 2021, for which he received a 54-month custodial sentence is sufficient evidence to find that he has such a propensity.

Both parents, the mother and E, seek to rely upon the following text message exchange between them on 5 May 2024:

"E: You are doing my head in, haven't bonded with the baby at all, all (A). (A) reason why we are here, you are taking the absolute piss.

Mother: I haven't bonded with him, no? Wow, I've seen him more than (A). I'm sick of your fucking attitude, constantly kicking off, go fuck yourself.

E: All that is why you can go and do and be all for one because watch.

Mother: See, I am sick of you threatening me with this, all the time, I'm the only one who would never stop you from seeing your kid, but you are trying to do it with me.

E: Get a grip, you big spaz, exist for nothing.

Mother: Wow, am done with you.

E: Good.

Mother: Sick of you putting me down all the time like I'm not low as it is.

E: Well, mate, you need to get a grip really, it's our newborn baby going through it because (A) is the one that needs the attention and yes, you do see him more as social know its him. You should be seeing more, are you daft?

Mother: And I am seeing him, are you stupid, I've been away three fucking hours, not even that you have got a problem with (A) or something:

E: Got a problem? How you're not being a mother properly to the baby but trying your best for (A), the one who is put us in this position.

E: And don't go there with (A), mate, his own dad can't be arsed with (A) and many other people wouldn't bond with him but I have, so don't fucking go there, you piece of shit.

Mother: No, you're the one that has put us in this position, if you want to be like that, I asked you for days to do that gate, but no, work was more important, just like it was throughout my pregnancy.

E: Hahaha, on my mother's life, you want to shut your mouth and think first, you know he shouldn't have gone near the baby, problems or not, because you should have told him right from wrong and put him in his place. If you want to go down that road, you daft cunt. You really don't want to start, you know, (C).

Mother: You are the one starting constantly, reminding me how much of a shit mum I am, like I don't already get made out to be one enough by everybody else.

E: Just stay there, don't rush, baby's getting sorted, see to (A).

Mother: You should be with him, go back and slag me off to everyone.

E: Don't have to, people have eyes.

Mother: Oh, so they have already been saying, have they?

E: No, but no doubt they are thinking.

Mother: Not going to go somewhere were the people think that then. I'll get them back on my own, don't worry about it.

E: Do you reckon. You don't message back anyway. See you, you baby.

Mother: Wow, you get worse by the minute and no.

Mother: And all for (A), yes. (F)'s had my car which I pay £400 a month and (A) has had his room done, if that is what you are getting at so don't see how it's one sided.

E: Least you could have done, so don't go there and told you many times, if someone is a cunt I'm by far a bigger cunt.

Mother: Sick of your threats, do it then. Nothing can get any worse than what it is.

E: Should have said was getting (L) to do it, I'd have paid someone, putting the kids at jeopardy, letting a nonce do it.

E: I don't do threats, (C).

Mother: Okay, anything else you want to add to the list? Got more things to say about me by the day, so don't even know why we are still together".

It is suggested on behalf of both the mother and E, that this text message exchange, in May 2024, was an exchange during an unguarded moment when it is noteworthy that neither blames the other for injuring B. Rather, it is suggested that E, in turn, suggests that A is the reason why they are here, and the mother suggests that the fault was with E for failing to put up the new, bigger stair gate.

It is further suggested that the Court should draw the conclusion from that exchange that neither the mother nor E caused injuries to B.

Having considered all of the evidence, I am unable to make that finding. In saying that, I recognise of course, that the burden of proof in respect of the allegations made by the Local Authority is on the Local Authority to satisfy me on a balance of probabilities. The parents have to prove nothing. Simply because they failed to prove something that they allege, it does not mean that the Local Authority has proven its case.

In my judgment, the conversation does not go as far as the mother and E invite me to find. It is, however, fair to acknowledge that this is the single piece of evidence that has given me the greatest pause for thought and reflection in making the findings that I have made.

The Medical Evidence

At E91, M stated:

"It is shown on the MRI scan to represent an area of thrombosed cortical vein. Such a finding is indicative of a traumatic head injury and has been shown to have an increased incidence in cases of inflicted head injury".

At E95:

"It remains for the Court to establish the facts of this case, but for any event to be causal, it would have needed to have resulted in (B) specifically impacting the right side of his head against a hard and unyielding surface. In addition, the height of the fall would need to have been at least a meter, if not higher, or against a hard-edged surface.

Data from the Cardiff University Child Protection Systematic Reviews, now resourced by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health show that a severe head injury with a skull fracture and subdural bleeding in a child of (B)'s age, increase the likelihood that the child has suffered from an inflicted, traumatic event.

In regard to what these publications show, the odds ratio generated within the paper from Chris, et al indicates that the presentation of a skull fracture that contacts to all sutures is 28.4 times more likely to be a fracture that occurred due to an abusive injury. Additionally, the presence of thrombosis to cortical veins in this case also increases the risk that the nature of the injury to (B)'s head was inflicted rather than accidental".

According to K, at E110:

"This pattern of injury indicates that (B) has sustained significant blunt force trauma to the right side of his head and friction forces to the left side of his head with or without blunt force trauma to this site. Two different accounts were given by the mother to explain the injuries. The first account was of a short, vertical fall. In my opinion, this account does not provide an explanation for injuries noted to both sides of the head. The complex skull fracture and intracranial bleeding is atypical. The second account relied on the actions of (A), who is (B)'s four-year-old brother. In my opinion, this account lacked plausibility, as it relied on actions which, in my opinion, are beyond the developmental ability of a four-year-old. The lack of a suitable explanation for significant injury in an immobile infant is a concern for inflicted injury. The significant change in account is also a concern for inflicted injury".

At E120:

"A significant degree of force is required to cause a skull fracture. Skull fractures do not occur as a result of minor bumps. A relatively recent study reports on the number of, and likelihood of, abuse in children under three years who sustain a skull fracture. An association was found between skull fractures that extended to make contact with two or more suture lines. It is thought that abusive injuries are typically high-energy from children being hit, thrown, or slammed, resulting in a cause to propagate the fracture line in multiple directions across the skull. Sustaining a skull fracture is painful and distressing for an infant. This distress will be evident to a responsible carer who will notice the infant crying following the traumatic event".

At E121:

"(B) has sustained a complex skull fracture to the right side of his head, which is associated with intracranial haemorrhage and subgaleal haemorrhage. The pattern of injury is consistent with significant blunt force trauma applied to the skull, resulting in a complex fracture and areas of bleeding within and outside of the brain. The fracture is associated with the bruise and abrasion to the left forehead, therefore, (B) has sustained trauma to both sides of his head".

At E125:

"The degree of force to cause a complex skull fracture with intracranial haemorrhage is significant. This degree of trauma is rarely seen in the domestic setting when non-mobile infants may sustain injury from being dropped from carers arms or inadvertently being pushed or rolled off a raised surface. The inference is, therefore, that such an injury requires forces sufficient enough to cause a more serious injury than typically seen in these circumstances".

At E126:

"A childhood response to pain varies, however, small infants convey pain by crying, therefore, (B) would have been distressed at the time he sustained his injuries. The crying response may not be sustained if carers provide soothing techniques such as feeding and cuddling. However, if (B) sustained his fractures and was left undressed in the bath, I would expect (B) to demonstrate ongoing distress".

At E97:

"In my report, I considered the totality of the clothing, and the actions required to remove all of them, as reported by the mother. I have not had any information regarding the detail of the babygrow, but I have assumed the clothing to be of a standard type I see most often in my day-to-day clinical practice.

If the clothing is of this type, then the actions required dexterity and spatial awareness to manipulate limbs out of the arms and legs of the clothing and to remove a vest over the head. These are not items of clothing that (A) would have had practice at removing previously, and given the fact that (A) was reported to require assistance in getting himself undressed, I think it unlikely that he has the skills required to independently undress (B). Each of the items of clothing would generate a different level of challenging removal. In my opinion, the most difficult item to remove is the vest. It would require (A) to recognise the requirement to undo fasteners at the bottom between the legs and pull this item over the head. This is, without previous practice and experience in doing this. The challenge of removing the babygrow is manipulating limbs out of the arms and legs only, possible if it is a loose fit and is less difficult than the vest, but it is possible he can remove the nappy, but his state of undress was of the nappy, vest, and babygrow having been removed and did not involve removal of the nappy only".

I attach significant weight to the medical evidence in this case, having considered it holistically with all of the other evidence, but particularly, when considered with the evidence of the parents and my assessment of their credibility.

Inconsistent Accounts Provided by the Mother

The initial account given by the mother to the hospital was a complete fabrication. She suggests that the reason for giving this initial account was because she was concerned that if she had said she was asleep when A came in and took B, that she would be considered to be a neglectful mother.

I do not believe this explanation. In my judgment, she offered her initial account as an explanation for the injury but changed her account in the face of medical evidence.

The mother also admits that she lied about travelling to Z on the evening of 25 February 2024, the night before B was taken to hospital. This lie was revealed by the CYFOR analysis.

I found the mother's second account for B's injuries to be inherently implausible and unlikely, indeed, even E was driven in cross-examination to describe the account as pathetic.

The second and current account is that she put A down for a nap at about 10:30 in the morning. She accepted in cross-examination that a morning nap was not part of his usual routine. She also described that when she found B, he was not crying but whimpering. It was a low cry. That is not consistent with the medical evidence, in my judgment.

I also consider that it is likely that he would be distressed. He was naked, in a bath, according to his mother's account and had just suffered a very serious head injury.

The mother's case is that A climbed over a stairgate in order to get the B in her bedroom. Her account is that she knew this because he had done it before, and so she had bought a bigger stairgate. That had, however, not been fitted. She says that she had asked E more than once to fit it, but he had failed to do so.

The layout of her property shows that climbing over a stairgate put A right at the top of the stairs. It is noted in the medical records that A was a boy who walked into furniture and tripped over objects. He needed help dressing and undressing.

I find it inherently unlikely that she would have allowed that state of affairs to persist when he was at clear risk of falling down the stairs.

I also found her account lacking in credibility in that in order to retrieve B from the Next‑To‑Me cot, he would have had to have reached in over the side of the cot which was 72cm high. In June 2024, he was noted to be 109cm tall and the cot mattress was 26cm below the top of the cot.

By the mother's account, however, A managed to lift B out of the cot. He would have had to have done so without waking the mother. In addition, he would then have had to carry B down the stairs without falling, otherwise he would probably have been injured. He would had to have undressed him including his vest without B crying and waking his mother.

In addition, during the process of transferring him into the bath, naked, at some stage, he would have caused the injuries to B's head, which are likely to have caused B distress and, yet again, without waking the mother.

Whilst I accept that A had the ability to perform the individual acts, each of them on their own presented significant challenges for A, a four-year-old boy, who, it seems, had his own physical challenges according to the medical records.

I consider it to be inherently improbable that he would have been able to string together all of those individual acts, climbing over the stairgate, retrieving B from the Next-to-Me cot without waking the mother, carrying B down stairs, either having undressed him and put B's clothes in his, A's, room, again without waking the mother, causing the head injuries, putting him naked in the bath, all again without waking the mother.

Indeed, it was only on A's return to his mother's room that the mother awoke, according to the mother's account, simply by his presence.

I also consider it unlikely that A would have gone for a nap at 10:30, aged four, and when it was not part of his usual routine.

The Dishonesty of the Mother and E

E has been dishonest from the outset. He concealed the mother's pregnancy and his contact with B, from both his probation officer and the Local Authority.

He denied being known as G at the hospital, when clearly, he is known as G (see for example on the mother's phone records). In my judgment, that was to conceal his true identity, and not to ensure that he was only known by his legal name.

I found the evidence of E and the mother, about the nature of their relationship to be evasive, misleading, and at times downright dishonest.

I found the suggestion that E had not spent a single night at the mother's property to be utterly fanciful. It was clear, in my judgment, that they were in a relationship. This was a sexual relationship, which resulted in the birth of B. They had been seeing each other for some time. Since the Local Authority commenced proceedings, the couple have spent some overnights in a hotel together, for what E described as "comfort".

There were clear inconsistencies about how they came to be together in any sort of a relationship. The mother told the author of the parenting assessment that they had been introduced through a mutual friend. The father told the author of his parenting assessment exactly the same. Subsequently, each of them changed their account to say that the families have known each other for years.

Their accounts became that the two families had known each other for a long time, so she started to message him in prison. The mother accepted that she got valentine's day flowers from E on valentine's day in 2024. In addition, she received a card from him which said: "I love you more today than yesterday". Yet, in his oral evidence, the father maintained that it was simply friends with benefits.

The mother said in cross-examination that she did not know the father as G. However, he was described as G in her phone records.

There was an occasion when the mother accepted in her evidence that she had told E to hide upstairs when there was a visit by a social worker.

I have considered why the mother and E would tell so many lies and why the lies were the nature that they were. I have considered the full range of potential reasons for lies.

However, I have concluded that all of this, in my judgment, has been part of an overall plan to seek to distance E from B and the opportunity to cause the injuries.

The Concerted Attempt by the Mother and E to Distance E from the Mother's Address on 26 February.

Having considered the evidence holistically, I form the clear judgment that the mother and E conspired together to seek to suggest that he was not at the property through the night of the 25^th and into the morning of 26 February.

The evidence showed that the following mobile masts could be pinged if somebody was using a mobile phone from the mother's house: (several postcodes redacted)

I agree with the submission of the Local Authority that it is likely that E was staying regularly at the mother's property leading up to the causation of the injuries.

I note the evidence to suggest that his mobile phone pinged masts consistent with him staying at the mother's property as follows:

(i) Early in the morning of 20 February 2024, when the mother was in hospital.

(ii) Early in the hours of 22 February and again from 8:48am,

(iii) 8:59am on 23 February 2024.

(iv) Early hours of 24 February 2024.

(v) From 8:18am on 25 February 2024.

(vi) 1 53am on 26 February 2024.

I do not believe E, when he suggested that this was because he was out in a pub wetting the baby's head.

The evidence shows that E used his mobile phone at 1:53am in the early hours of 26 February and that it pinged the mast redacted. His phone then appeared to be off until 12:11pm, when it pinged at mast redacted. I note E received 11 text messages whilst connected to cell mast redacted at 12:12pm.

In my judgment, it is likely that he spent the night at the mother's property. I consider it unlikely that he went home. The fact that those masts pinged does not demonstrate conclusively that he must have been at the mother's address, it is only a piece in the jigsaw to be considered with all the other evidence, including the accounts of the mother and E to the contrary. However, I do not believe them.

It is likely, in my judgment, that when E made a call to the mother on 26 February 2024 at 12:14, she had left the house with B.

Between 12:14 and 12:20, the mother made three calls to N. Between 12:20 and 12:28, the mother dropped A, still in his pyjamas off at N.

At 12:24, the mother rang the maternal grandmother. At 12:28, the mother called 111 and the call lasted 13 minutes and 28 seconds.

At 12:29, E called the mother and was forwarded to voice mail. He tried again at 12:30.

At 12:31, E called the mother for one minute and 23 seconds and he was connected to (redacted).

Between 1:03pm and 4:02pm, E's phone connected to cell masts at (several postcodes redacted) At this time, E claimed he was fixing the stairgate.

I did not believe the explanations given by E that he would not stay over because he was a poor sleeper.

I did not believe that he went home because he needed to care for his aunt. His mother also claimed to be a carer for the aunt in her viability assessment.

I did not believe the mother and E when they suggested that the photographs showing an array of men's clothing, toiletries and footwear in her wardrobe and bedroom all belonged to her brother, who was, at the time, living at his father's in X during the week and his mother's in Z at the weekend. I consider that account to be inherently implausible. The brother has not lived at the mother's address for approximately two months.

I am satisfied that E has been utterly dishonest in his dealings with his mobile phones, with the intention of concealing information on the mobile phones from analysis.

He initially told CYFOR that the mother had broken his phone.

In his statement at C358, he suggested that the mobile phone that he had at the time of the injuries to B was broken into two pieces when he dropped it during contact. He had balanced it on his leg and stood and it dropped to the floor. He attended two mobile repair shops on the day that it broke to be told that it was beyond repair. He put in a public bin.

He then says he was without a mobile phone until August 2024. In other words, he was without a mobile phone shortly after these proceedings commenced in February 2024 until August.

He then says that he purchased a replacement telephone but also broke that by the hearing on 25 November. That phone was made available for analysis.

It is now clear from the mother's mobile phone records, that she was communicating with the father between February 2024 and August 2024. Indeed, it was put to the father that from K172 onwards in the bundle, one can see messages between the mother and E in February, March, April, May, and June, and sometimes calls on a daily basis.

In cross-examination, the father conceded that they were communicating during that period. The father then sought to suggest that he was using his mother's phone. However, it was put to him that it was his number. It was suggested to him that the reason was that he did not want to hand his phone in for examination by CYFOR.

He was utterly dishonest in dealing with these issues.

In addition, it was put to him that he has been using a mobile phone during contact to take pictures (see J39 and J53). He suggested it must have been someone else's phone. Again, he was lying.

At J59 there was a reference to the father stopping a phone from ringing. Again, he lied about not having a phone.

It was put to him that he knew, on 16 May, that CYFOR wanted to examine his phone and before it broke.

In addition, it is clear that the mother has also deleted data from her mobile phone. The analysis from CYFOR at E383 states:

"This shows that 225 call logs between 17 February 2024 at 10:59pm and 27 February 2024 at 11:12 in the morning have been deleted from the device".

In cross-examination, she said that she had deleted messages from her account due to her friends messaging about their children and asking about her children which upset her.

Later, she said it was to remove arguments that she had had with E as they upset her, although the unpleasant exchanges between the two of them, which can be read in the documentation provided by CYFOR, demonstrate that she did not erase all of the arguments.

Subsequently, she said that she deleted messages when her phone goes slow.

I did not believe her with any of the explanations, she was deliberately hiding information, in my judgment.

Indeed, the evidence of E was consistently dishonest, notwithstanding the basis of his plea to an offensive conspiracy, he maintained in his statement at C366 that he did not suspect any criminal activity until he was arrested for the offence. Conspiracy carries with it the vital ingredient of agreement. Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act, 1977 states:

"If a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either—

(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or

(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible,

he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question".

I do not accept that he only pleaded guilty because he was advised to do so or that he was told to plead guilty. Indeed, I do not go behind his conviction through his plea.

Unfortunately, the mother was just as dishonest as E. For example, she said that she was home all night on 25 February, however, it transpired that she had gone to Z to visit her mother, who lives with a known paedophile, according to the parents. The mother knew that she should not be doing that and taking a child with her. The mother sought to explain it away by saying that she only went to see her brother and either sat in the car in a car park or went for a meal but could not remember which.

Her phone location shows that she was there between 5:18pm and 7:10pm.

The mother also visited the same property on 22 February 2024 and that cannot have been to visit the brother, as he lived with the father in X during the week.

I also agree with closing submissions on behalf of the Local Authority, that E and the mother were very poor witnesses. Their written and oral evidence was indeed littered with inconsistencies and lies.

Inflicted or Accidental

It is likely that the injuries to B were inflicted.

I make those findings for the following reasons:

(i) I attach significant weight to the medical evidence, when considered with all the other evidence, I conclude on the balance of probabilities that the injuries were inflicted as opposed to accidental.

(ii) The nature of the injuries to the skull, involving more than one suture and brain bleeds requires forces sufficient enough to cause that injury and those injuries are not typically seen in a domestic setting.

(iii) The dishonesty of the mother and E, which in my judgment was likely to hide the truth and the fact that one of them has caused these injuries. If there was an accidental cause for the injury, then it is likely, in my judgment, that such an explanation would have been given.

(iv) There appears to be a missing hour before the mother presented at hospital with B, when one considers the gap between the telephone calls and visit to her friend to drop of A and checking in at hospital.

(v) E, despite knowing that B was in hospital from 12:31, did not attend hospital until 5:27, with no good and sufficient reason, in my judgment. I do not accept that that was due to him fitting the new stairgate.

That concludes this judgment.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> The Local Authority v C, D & E [2025] EWFC 58 (B) (18 February 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/58.html Cite as: [2025] EWFC 58 (B)

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)