A Local Authority v M & Ors

I am concerned with a 2 year old girl, referred to within this judgment as ‘A’.

Her mother (“the Mother”) is represented by Ayesha Hasan, instructed by Reena Vadera of Machins LLP.

Her father (“the Father”) is represented by Robert Wilkinson, instructed by Sally Jackson of Noble Solicitors.

Her Children’s Guardian is referred to as “the Guardian”. A is represented by Siobhan Kelly, instructed by Emma Taylor of Sweetman, Burke & Sinker Solicitors.

The Applicant Local Authority (“the LA”) is represented by Fiona Munro instructed by Mehwish Jabin.

The LA has made an application dated 4 November 2025 for permission to withdraw proceedings. The LA says that in the light of medical evidence in this single issue case, the LA will not be able to satisfy the s.31(2) Children Act (“CA”) 1989 threshold criteria for making a care or supervision order.

All the other parties support the LA’s application for permission to withdraw proceedings. For reasons which I will set out, I give the LA permission to withdraw these proceedings.

In making that decision, I have read and considered the 497 page bundle, the LA’s case summary and skeleton argument, the Mother’s position statement, the Father’s skeleton argument and the Guardian’s position statement. I have also considered the submissions made by the parties at today’s hearing.

I have not been asked to hear any evidence and do not consider that I need to. This application has been determined on submissions.

A’s welfare remains my paramount consideration.

The LA’s case summary and skeleton argument sets out a detailed and helpful summary of the relevant background, which I incorporate into this ex tempore judgment.

Essentially, on 21 March 2025, the LA received a referral from Luton and Dunstable Hospital raising concerns that A had unexplained fractures. The Mother had taken A to her GP on 13 March 2025 after she noticed that A was limping. X rays revealed a greenstick fracture in A’s distal left tibia. That is a type of fracture commonly seen in younger children where bones are more flexible. The Mother told professionals that A is and was an active child.

On 25 March 2025, the hospital confirmed from a skeletal survey a number of other unexplained fractures on A’s left leg, wrists, shoulder and right leg.

An MRI scan on 31 March 2025 confirmed another fracture in the upper part of A’s left leg.

The parents were unable to explain the fractures.

A further older healing fracture was identified in A’s left leg.

The multiple fractures in a then 19 month old toddler who had just learned to walk raised serious safeguarding concerns. The medical evidence at the time considered that: “In the absence of history of trauma, these fractures are highly characteristic of non-accidental injury.”

A moved to the care of her Maternal Aunt. However, on 13 May 2025 A moved to the care of Mr and Mrs C, family friends, where she has remained.

A’s parents clearly want A back home with them. They clearly love A and have worked with the LA and professionals in these proceedings well, despite A being separated from them. They have spent time with A regularly but that is not the same as having A living with them and being in their care.

Proceedings were issued and court appointed experts have been instructed:

Unusually the paediatric report came in before the report of the geneticist but, having considered the geneticist’s report, the paediatrician’s view remains the same.

The reports are summarised in the LA’s case summary and do not support a finding of inflicted injury. Dr Kelly’s clear opinion, having considered the other court appointed experts’ reports, is that more likely than not A experienced an accidental fall from standing and possibly impacting her left knee, which led to her sustaining a fracture of her left distal tibia and a possible fracture to her left transverse proximal tibia. Dr Kelly reports that the fractures will have healed with no long-lasting effects. She describes A as an otherwise healthy child. She considers that A’s parents displayed appropriate behaviour, seeking a medical review once they noticed a change in A’s behaviour and described them as concerned parents who reacted quickly to symptoms and signs which they thought needed to be assessed. She reports that there were no prior concerns about A’s health, safety and wellbeing.

Dr Kelly reports that A sustained a clearly identified greenstick fracture of her left distal tibia.Greenstick fractures are more likely to happen in children because their bones are more flexible than those of an adult. She reports that the important point in this case was that only the tibia was fractured. She states that this was what is commonly known as a “toddler fracture”, as it was a non-displaced fracture of the tibia with an intact fibula, in a child aged between 9 months and 3 years. She states that this sort of fracture usually results from a low energy fall, typically in a young child who is toddling or just beginning to walk and observes that A had only been walking for 2 months.

Dr Kelly’s report states:

“In my opinion, there has been no parental failure to protect the child. It is evident on reading her primary care records before her presentation on 13/03/2025, A’s parents were very attentive parents who complied with the usual health visitor assessments after birth, attended for immunisations, her 8-month check, etc. entirely appropriately. They sought attention from their GP when they were concerned about A’s symptoms. They also attended out of hours urgent GP services when they remained concerned that she was not getting better in their opinion, when she became unwell at the beginning of March with probable tonsillitis.

They were her main carers and apart from a period of just a few hours when mother when unable to care for her prior to her presentation on 13/03/2025, no other adults were involved in her care. They appear to be dedicated to ensuring her safety and wellbeing. It is quite possible to not witness every single event that occurs in their child’s life despite being so dedicated to her care.”

A professionals’ meeting took place on 21 October 2025 before Dr Irving’s report was available. Dr Irving did not attend that meeting. The minutes are agreed. None of the experts’ evidence supports a finding of non-accidental/inflicted injury.

Dr Irving’s report was received after Dr Kelly’s report. No genetic disorders were identified by Dr Irving that would require further genetic testing. Dr Irving has confirmed that there is nothing to lead her to believe that A would be more susceptible to fractures than any other child.

Dr Kelly has considered Dr Irving’s report and her view remains that A’s fractures were sustained through accidental trauma rather than as a result of an inflicted physical force.

Police disclosure of the body worn footage of the parents’ arrest is outstanding but no one says that it should be awaited. Everyone says that it will not affect the expert medical opinion evidence in this case. I agree with that.

The Police have applied for disclosure of documents from these proceedings and I dealt with that application dated 29 October 2025 at the start of this hearing because after today these proceedings will come to an end. Today is the last day of these proceedings. The Police’s application for disclosure was agreed by all parties. Whilst I did not have sight of the Police’s position statement dated 4 November 2025 before the case started today (it was uploaded to the portal this morning), I am aware of the relevant authority, Re EC (Disclosure of Material) [1996] 2 FLR 725, and in the light of the parties’ agreement and applying the legal principles set out in that case, I granted the Police’s application for disclosure.

Other than A’s fractures, no other concerns have been raised in this case. There is no evidence of conflict in the parents’ relationship. There is no evidence of substance misuse or mental health difficulties. The parents have engaged well with the LA and with other professionals. They have attended all the hearings. They have spent time with A. There is no evidence that A is uncomfortable with her parents. All the other evidence points towards A being a much loved child who was well cared for by her parents.

There is no dispute about the law. It has been helpfully addressed in the parties’ case summary, skeleton arguments and position statements for today’s hearing.

The LA can only withdraw an application for a care order with the permission of the Court: FPR r.29.4(2).

The circumstances in which such permission will be granted has been considered in a number of cases.

All applications fall into two categories (Redbridge London Borough Council v B and C and A [2011] EWHC 517 (Fam)) as approved in Lancashire County Council v TP and Others (Permission to Withdraw Care Proceedings) (2019).

To fall within the first category, the inability to satisfy the criteria must be obvious (Re J, A, M and X (Children) [2014] EWHC 4648 (Fam)). If so, the application must succeed; there can be no successful objection to an application to withdraw care proceedings where the threshold for the making of an order will not be crossed.

To fall within the second category, it must be possible on the evidence for the LA to satisfy the threshold criteria. In those circumstances, an application to withdraw the proceedings must be determined by considering (1) whether withdrawal of the care proceedings will promote or conflict with the welfare of the child concerned, and (2) the overriding objective under the Family Procedure Rules. The relevant factors include those identified in A County Council v DP and others [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam) namely:

When considering the necessity and proportionality in conducting a fact finding hearing, the Court must consider the factors set out in Oxfordshire County Council v DP, RS and BS [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam) and Re H-D-H (Children),Re C (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192. In the Oxfordshire case, McFarlane J held:

Having seen all the expert medical evidence, the LA submits that this case falls within the first category. The parents and the CG support that submission.

Having considered all the written evidence and submissions, I agree that this case falls within the first category. My reasons are:

It is clear to me that on the evidence I have read, the fact finding hearing listed to start on 17 November 2025 is now both unnecessary and disproportionate.

I give the LA permission to withdraw its application for a care order. It follows that the outstanding directions fall away.

I vacate the fact finding hearing and bring these proceedings to an end.

I am grateful to the parents for their dignity and patience in these proceedings. It must have been very difficult for them to be separated from A for so long.

I am grateful to the Maternal Aunt and to Mr and Mrs C for providing A with a home whilst she was away from her parents’ care. It is fortunate that family and friends were able to step forward.

I am also grateful to all the professionals for their hard work in this case.

I am pleased that A will be returning home today.

The basis for A’s continued placement away from her parents under s.20 CA 1989 is clearly no longer met. There is no reason for A to spend another day or night away from her parents’ care.

I wish the parents and A the very best in the future.

That is my judgment.