Case Study: Reported High Court Case Involving Allegations of Multiple Fractures
Re L (A Child – Media Reporting) [2011] EWHC B8 (Fam)
Re L (Psychologist: Duty to the Court) [2011] EWHC B29 (Fam)
Case Overview
Issue: Allegations of multiple fractures and non-accidental injury to a six-week-old baby
Our Client: Mother
Court: High Court (Reported Judgment)
Outcome: Extensive expert evidence considered, with limited findings made and long-term family placement secured
The Situation
We represented a mother in High Court care proceedings following allegations that her six-week-old baby had sustained multiple fractures and other injuries.
Given the seriousness and complexity of the medical evidence, the case was transferred to the High Court and attracted significant legal attention, ultimately resulting in two reported judgments.
The central issue for the Court was whether the injuries had been caused deliberately and, if so, by whom.
Complex Medical Evidence
The case involved a substantial body of expert medical evidence. The Court instructed a number of independent specialists, including:
- Paediatric Radiologist
- Consultant Paediatrician
- Paediatric Haematologist
- Clinical Geneticist
- Consultant in Paediatric Bone Disorders
Each expert provided evidence regarding the nature of the injuries, possible medical explanations and the likely mechanism by which the fractures had occurred.
The medical evidence was examined in detail during a lengthy Finding of Fact Hearing.
The Court’s Findings
After carefully considering all of the evidence, the Court concluded that:
- The mother was responsible for one fracture to the child’s arm.
- The Court was unable to determine whether the mother or father was responsible for the remaining fractures and marks.
The Court did not make findings identifying either parent as responsible for all of the injuries alleged.
The Welfare Decision
Following the Finding of Fact Hearing, the Court moved on to determine what arrangements would be in the child’s best interests.
Initially, the child was placed with the maternal grandmother.
At the final welfare hearing, the Court made:
- A Joint Residence Order in favour of the father and the paternal grandparents
- A 12-month Supervision Order
- Detailed arrangements for the child to spend time with both the mother and the maternal grandmother
Key Result
- Represented the mother in a complex reported High Court case
- Managed extensive expert medical evidence from multiple specialist disciplines
- Successfully challenged aspects of the Local Authority’s case, with the Court unable to attribute responsibility for the majority of the injuries
- Achieved ongoing family involvement and structured contact arrangements following the welfare hearing
Why This Case Matters
Cases involving alleged non-accidental injuries and multiple fractures are among the most complex matters dealt with by the Family Court. They often involve competing medical opinions, detailed expert evidence and significant consequences for parents and children.
This reported High Court case demonstrates our experience in:
- Complex medical evidence
- Non-accidental injury (NAI) cases
- High Court care proceedings
- Expert witness challenges
- Protecting parents throughout care proceedings
Read the Full Judgment
This case resulted in two reported High Court judgments:
- Re L (A Child – Media Reporting) [2011] EWHC B8 (Fam)
- Re L (Psychologist: Duty to the Court) [2011] EWHC B29 (Fam)
