IMPORTANT NOTICE
This judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission 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 this judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.
IN THE FAMILY COURTSITTING AT WOLVERHAMPTON WV25C50299
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE REDMOND
Re: Q (Withdrawal of Care Proceedings)
WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL
-AND-
MOTHER
FATHER
THE CHILD
-WITH-
GRANDMOTHER INTERVENING
Solicitor for the Local Authority: Ms Bangard
Solicitor for the Mother: Ms Williams
Solicitor for the Father: Ms Batth
The grandmother in person
Solicitor for the Children: Mr Singh
JUDGMENT
I am concerned with a much-loved little girl, who is just 10 months old. At the age of only 4 months, she presented with a complete and displaced spiral fracture to her left thigh bone. Such an injury in a child of that age requires an investigation and the umbrella of care proceedings was extended over her while this was conducted.
Having now considered and received that expert evidence, neither the local authority or the children’s guardian consider that proceedings should continue. Permission is sought to withdraw and that is supported by all parties.
Care proceedings having been initiated, the local authority must have the court’s permission to withdraw their application. The law concerning such an application was summarised by Baker LJ in Re GC [2020] EWCA Civ 848. There are two categories of cases where a local authority may seek to withdraw:
Paragraph 19: As identified by Hedley J in the Redbridge case, applications to withdraw care proceedings will fall into two categories. In the first, the local authority will be unable to satisfy the threshold criteria for making a care or supervision order under s.31(2) of the Act. In such cases, the application must succeed. But for cases to fall into this first category, the inability to satisfy the criteria must, in the words of Cobb J in Re J, A, M and X (Children), be "obvious".
Paragraph 20:“In the second category, there will be cases where on the evidence it is possible for the local authority 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 will include those identified by McFarlane J in Oxfordshire County Council v DP which, having regard to the paramountcy of the child's welfare and the overriding objective in the FPR, can be restated in these terms: the necessity of the investigation and the relevance of the potential result to the future care plans for the child; the obligation to deal with cases justly; whether the hearing would be proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues; the prospects of a fair trial of the issues and the impact of any fact-finding process on other parties; the time the investigation would take and the likely cost to public funds.”
The local authority have filed an exceptionally helpful and comprehensive skeleton argument by Ms Bangard, with which the other parties agree. This was prepared with dedication against the pressures of time. I hope that she will forgive me for relying on that document quite significantly to produce a summary of the circumstances that lead to this application for withdrawal.
On 20th June 2025, Q was the subject of a Child Protection Medical jointly completed by a Specialty Doctor in Acute Paediatrics together with a Community Paediatric Doctor and Child Protection Consultant. The concerns were described as swelling, bony crepitus and tenderness to the left thigh and a displaced left femur, mid shaft spiral fracture. Due to the child’s age and history this was flagged as being a serious worry for non accidental injury.
Q was noted to be well kept baby who was thriving. No other injuries were noted on her body. All other investigations including blood tests, ophthalmology examination, CT brain scan and skeletal survey were reported as normal. During the examination, there was a good bond noted between Q and her mother.
No other acute or healing fractures were seen and there was no evidence of any underlying skeletal dysplasia or metabolic abnormality of the bones. The fracture was less than 12 days old on 24 June 2025.
An early explanation was provided by mother and maternal grandmother of grandmother “cycling Q’s legs to relieve what was thought to be constipation” but said to be without any excessive force. This was considered by the treating medical team against the guidance in The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Child Protection Companion which cautions in their chapter of recognition of physical abuse that femoral fractures in children who are nor independently mobile are suspicious of abuse, regardless of type. It is also mentioned that under the age of fifteen months, a spiral fracture is the commonest abusive femoral fracture. Fractures do not occur in normal infants as a result of normal handling or exuberant play.
Without the description of excessive force, the treating clinicians remained worried that “in the absence of a clear and satisfactory account of the mechanism of trauma or a medical explanation for the fracture inflicted injury must be considered”.
As a result, the local authority initiated care proceedings by way of an application dated 8 August 2025 and sought further expert opinion. The care plan of the child being cared for by her paternal great aunt, with her supervising all care provided to her by her mother and father such that contact could be flexible and not restricted to contact supervised by the authority. However, of course the court is alive to the great strain this placed on the family. This plan was approved by the court and the child was made the subject of an interim care order on 20 August 2025.
The parties jointly instructed two experts in these proceedings and they have swiftly reported:
Dr Olsen is a Consultant Paediatric Radiologist and confirmed that Q has sustained a complete spiral fracture of the shaft of the left thigh bone, with the fracture likely occurring on some date from 10 June 2025 up to and including 19 June 2025. The mechanism for the fracture is the twisting of the leg, most likely with a force that exceeded what is expected during reasonable handling assuming there is no underlying abnormality that the radiology does not identify. Whilst cycling of the legs without simultaneous twisting does not explain a spiral fracture, without commenting on the clinical presentation, Dr Olsen does opine that there is always a possibility that an initially undisplaced fracture could become displaced as a result of reasonable manoeuvring. In relation to the explanation given by the maternal grandmother, Dr Olsen says “if that is accepted (no twisting is not demonstrated in a video clip shared with me, nor is any rolling/twisting described in grandmother’s initial statement ), then there had been an out of ordinary twisting event involving the left leg, and I could not exclude it as a viable explanation for the fracture.’’ Dr Olsen then goes on to say “Grandmother does think the left leg had twisted, I am not quite able to follow her reasoning, so I would suggest further exploration of this very specific point.’’
Dr Morrell is a Consultant Paediatrician and agreed that a twisting force would have had to be applied to the leg to cause a fracture in the femur. In relation to the explanation provided by the maternal grandmother Dr Morrell confirms that a cycling movement should not result in a fracture to the femur unless excessive force was applied or if there was an underlying bony fragility. He recommended further assessment to exclude the possibility of bone fragility. In relation to the time window for the fracture, Dr Morrell was able to narrow it considerably. Given the medical examination undertaken on 19 June including movement of the leg and given Q’s presentation, Dr Morrell was able to opine that it was likely that the fracture occurred on a single day, 19 June 2025, at sometime between approximately 3pm and 6pm.
The assessment of the parents raises no concerns about their parenting of Q, who is it clear they love and adore. They have fully engaged with the local authority and, as a result, the social work team have reduced from 4 times a week to once a week from 21 October 2025 and to fortnightly from 21 November 2025.
Whilst the instruction of another expert, as proposed by Dr Morrell could assist the Court in determining whether Q does suffer from any bone fragility, this would not be without further delay and expense. No party makes that application.
I am satisfied that this is a case which falls into the second category as described above and the court looks to the principles in the Oxfordshire case restated within Re GC cited above.
The court has summarised above the evidence on the one hand deriving from a purely medical basis and that in terms of the parental capacity to care, concentrating on the protective factors and absence of risk factors. The fracture itself is confined to an exceptionally short period of time where the court has evidence from the carers of the tasks they undertook. The father is not considered to be a person of interest within the timeline. The mother’s care in all other aspects is exemplary and the grandmother has described a single event where she considers it may have occurred.
Further investigations are suggested by the paediatrician which, by their very nature, will take time and cause further delay for Q. At the moment she is living away from the parents and even with the generous family-supervised contact, that must be distressing for Q and should only be continued if it is necessary for the court to determine an allegation.
However, that allegation is now, on a review of all of the evidence filed so far, no longer pursued by the authority. Such has the oversight of not only the allocated social work team and their management, but both the service manager and Head of Service. The independent reviewing officer agrees with that position as does the children’s guardian.
It is accepted for any unexplained fracture in a child of Q’s age would always trouble a local authority. The initial investigation has now been properly undertaken and the evidence filed which has provided a great deal of clarity of the circumstances in which a fracture might have been sustained.
While the fracture, in terms of its type and the child’s age, is troubling there is a history in this case of a factual event and narrow window. While there are some discrepancies in that account with what a medic would expect, such would remain a factual matter to be determined by the court and would require further evidence. The evidence must be viewed as a whole and the court bears in mind that it is the local authority who carry the burden of proof.
Had the injury been sustained in the care of the grandmother as described, and I make no findings that it has, such does not readily appear from the evidence to be reasonably foreseeable by loving parents. In all other aspects their care is agreed by professionals to be exemplary with no significant risk factors within a sea of protective factors. The court’s role, and the very basis of its jurisdiction, is to intervene in family life only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. That reflects the significance that society places upon the freedom of parents to care for their children balanced against the occasionally necessary need for the state to intervene for child protection reasons to ensure the safety and wellbeing of some of society’s most vulnerable.
For all the reasons analysed above, it is not necessary to continue these care proceedings and the matter should come to an end without any orders being made. The authority do not seek to prove any threshold findings and in their absence the court has no jurisdiction to make public law orders.
Before the court leaves the matter, it would just note matters that may assist in a future approach to cases of this type. Every day that a little baby spends away from their parents’ care, or with such restrictions, counts and while sometimes that is unavoidable for a child’s protection we must all ground ourselves in our humanity as to the effect such must have not only on the child, but their parents. A swift application at the beginning of the exercise brings the child under an umbrella of protection that exists outside of the authority, including appointing a children’s guardian who can provide an independent voice for the child, and instating the applications for experts at the earliest stage. Once proceedings were instigated, experts were swiftly appointed and reported quickly. There had been some slight delay from the filing of the medical report in early November to this application being made. There has to be a proper analysis process by professionals, but the court was not entirely persuaded that the annual leave dates raised were a significant bar to that process taking place. Sadly, an earlier hearing had to be adjourned for the authority to complete that exercise without prior notice, but happily the court has been able to accommodate a further hearing in swift time. Such has placed pressure on the court list, but had to be balanced with giving the family a decision quickly in such difficult circumstances for them. I hope that I have been able to achieve that for them while also giving due consideration to child protection concerns reasonably raised.
Every professional in this case has shown the dedication and compassion needed in such sensitive matters. The parents and grandmother have conducted such a stressful time in their family life with dignity and an openness which has facilitated a swift end to the proceedings. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult that has been for everyone. Everyone has the thanks of the court.
The court grants the local authority’s application to withdraw proceedings and for the avoidance of doubt the court makes no order and no findings.