Lisa Edmunds represents Local Authority in C, In the matter of The Children Act 1989 [2026] EWFC 33 (B) (29 January 2026) - Fact Finding Judgment Summary
Overview
This case concerned a Local Authority application for a care order in respect of a child aged almost 11 months who had suffered catastrophic injuries resulting in lifelong disabilities. The court conducted a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the injuries were non-accidental and, if so, whether the perpetrator could be identified.
Background
The child was taken to hospital after becoming unresponsive at home. Medical examination revealed multiple serious injuries, including fractures, intracranial bleeding and retinal haemorrhage. Expert medical evidence was unanimous that the injuries were inflicted and consistent with significant trauma.
Prior to hospitalisation, the child had lived with both parents and was not previously known to children’s services. Following discharge, she was placed within the extended family where she remained pending the outcome of proceedings.
Issues for the Court
The central questions for determination were:
Whether the child had suffered non-accidental injuries;
Whether one or both parents were responsible;
Whether the mother had failed to protect the child from harm.
Evidence and Findings
The court considered extensive lay and expert evidence, including specialist medical reports and witness testimony. The expert evidence was described as overwhelming and unchallenged in concluding that the injuries were inflicted.
Having considered the evidence as a whole, the court found:
The injuries were non-accidental and caused by significant force;
The father was responsible for the injuries;
The father had been dishonest in his account and lacked credibility;
The mother neither caused the injuries nor failed to protect the child.
The court found the mother to be a loving and caring parent who had sought medical advice appropriately and had not recognised the father’s conduct.
Legal Principles
The judgment reaffirmed established principles governing fact-finding hearings in public law proceedings, including:
The burden of proof lies on the Local Authority;
The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities;
Findings must be based on the totality of evidence rather than speculation.
Outcome
The court made findings consistent with the Local Authority’s case that the injuries were inflicted by the father. These findings will inform subsequent welfare determinations concerning the child’s future care.
Significance
This decision illustrates the court’s approach to:
evaluating complex medical evidence in suspected non-accidental injury cases;
identifying a sole perpetrator where the evidential threshold is met;
distinguishing between causation of harm and allegations of failure to protect.
It underscores the importance of a holistic assessment of evidence and the court’s obligation to identify responsibility where the balance of probabilities permits.
Law is correct as of 19th February 2026. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational purposes. Readers are respectfully reminded that it is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. No liability is accepted for any error or omission contained herein.
