Blackpool Borough Council v HM & Ors

This is an application by the Local Authority, Blackpool Borough Council, to withdraw its application for a Care Order in relation to OW, a child born in September 2023. The application for a Care Order was made as long ago as May 2024. The application is brought pursuant to Rule 29.4(2) of the Family Procedure Rules. The application is supported by O’s Guardian and her parents. All parties have been represented before me today. Susan Grocott KC and Heather Hobson appeared for Blackpool. Taryn Lee KC and Paul Hart appeared for HM, O's mother. Karl Rowley KC and Ian McArdle appear for GW, O's father. Michael Jones KC and Carolyn Bland appeared for Miss Poplawski, O’s Guardian.

I have been addressed by way of written submissions and brief oral submissions, including, very helpfully, by way of an agreed summary of the medical evidence and an agreed summary of the facts.

The legal test to which I have been addressed is considered by MacDonald J in A Local Authority v X, Y, and Z (Permission to Withdraw) [2017] EWHC 3741 (Fam). I am reminded that the child's welfare is my paramount concern.

I am told that there are two possible scenarios for me to consider on this application:

It is necessary for me to set out some of the background to explain why they say that. I acknowledge that my summary of the evidence will not do justice to the complexity and detail of the medical evidence.

On 11 April 2024, O fell from a worktop in her grandparents’ home. She was strapped into a bouncer. O fell on her face. There is consistent evidence in relation to the fall. It was caused accidentally by another child.

She was taken immediately to the local hospital, Blackpool Hospital, which was within 300 yards of her grandparents’ home, by her mother. She was floppy when she arrived in Blackpool Hospital. She was, on 13 April 2024, transferred to Alder Hey hospital.

Following a number of CT scans, it was concluded (by Mr Sinha, a consultant paediatric neurosurgeon at Alder Hey) that O had head injuries which were consistent with a fall but also had other head injuries which could not be explained by a simple fall. Further, it was reported that there were retinal haemorrhages to O’s eye, which is a condition common in cases of non accidental injury and, in particular, shaking.

A consultant community paediatrician at Alder Hey, Dr Ruwan De Soysa, reviewed the material and concluded that:

O, when she came out of the hospital in April 2024, was cared for by her maternal uncle and aunt. The care proceedings started in May 2024. An Interim Care Order was made in June 2024. The parents have continued to spend time with O while she is with her aunt and uncle. Since the hearing before me earlier this month, O has been gradually returned to her parents’ care.

Within the care proceedings and as a court expert, Professor Stivaros, a consultant paediatric neurologist, produced a provisional report on 20 August 2024. He expressed a concern in relation to the head injuries that O had not only suffered from the fall but also an undisclosed episode of trauma.

Dr Rose, a consultant paediatrician, produced a report on 22 August 2024. Dr Rose considered that Dr De Soysa’s opinion needs now to be seen in the light of Professor Stivaros’s report. He concluded that O’s injuries are consistent with both a shaking injury and an impact injury.

On the same day, Professor Fielder raised further questions about the retinal haemorrhages, suggesting that the images might be of different baby. He said the discrepancies were extraordinary.

At a hearing in November 2024, HHJ Booth permitted the instruction of a neurosurgeon along with other experts. Namely, Professor Saggar (clinical geneticist) and Dr Keenan (a paediatric haematologist).

In January 2025, I permitted the instruction of a second paediatric neuroradiologist, Dr Hogarth. Dr Keenan reported on the 23 December 2024 saying he had not yet identified any blood clotting disorder, but there were further tests to do. Mr Calisto, the neurosurgeon reported in a report dated 16 February 2025. He agreed that the injuries seen here are rarely seen in low level falls, such as from the work surface, but that the fall could not be discounted as an explanation for all of the injuries. Indeed, he goes as far as to say that it is possible, on balance more likely than not, that O suffered her injuries from the alleged fall.

Professor Saggar reported on the 3 April 2025 identifying 3 gene variants. They did not however explain any greater bleedings. On the 8 April 2025 Dr Keenan provided an addendum report which indicated that the results were suggestive of a platelet functions disorder, but there would need to be further diagnostic tests to confirm a diagnosis. Dr Hogarth, the second paediatric neuroradiologist reported in April 2025. He considered all the neuroimaging could be caused by a single event but makes clear that he shares the concerns of Professor Stivaros.

In the light of this further expert evidence:

The Court on hearing the application for a Care Order, will be faced with the following three dominant features in this case:

It is obvious that this is a decision of very considerable gravity. If I get this wrong, O runs the risk of grave harm. Nonetheless, holding her welfare at the centre of my thoughts, I conclude that, in the light of the factors set out above, it is overwhelmingly likely that the Court will not find that on the balance of probabilities the threshold has been made out. I therefore agree with all the advocates.

It follows from that conclusion that I must grant permission to withdraw these proceedings. That is my ruling on the primary application in front of me. So I agree that I must grant permission to withdraw these proceedings.

I have just heard and ruled upon an application brought by Blackpool to withdraw their application for a Care Order in relation to O, and I have determined that they have permission to withdraw it. For reasons which are understandable, the parents do not want the matter to end there. There is criticism across all of the advocates in relation to the way in which Dr Rose and Professor Stivaros have dealt with their work as single joint experts.

As to Dr Rose, all parties criticise his analysis of the issues in his first report and say that he accepts the opinions of other specialists without properly questioning them. They complained he did not, in his original report, deal with the oddities identified in relation to the ocular haemorrhages.

Likewise, they criticise Dr Rose for not, in his addendum report, analysing the difference between the specialists and explaining why he remains of his first opinion.

A further point raised in oral submissions is that Dr Rose did not, as Dr Calisto did in his report, set out what is described to me, by way of what I will refer to in shorthand, as a degree of panic in Blackpool which caused matters to escalate in a manner which may not have been, to use Dr Calisto’s words, “for good reason”.

As to Professor Stivaros, the criticism is that he does not engage with the reports of Calisto and Hogarth once they had been produced, and he merely retains his original view. Mr Jones, for the Guardian, says to me that I may sensibly distinguish between the alleged failings of Stivaros and the failings of Rose.

The issue raised by counsel is this: that Dr Rose and Professor Stivaros have not fulfilled their duties as court experts. It was advanced to me, by Miss Lee, that gives rise to two significant problems: first, and what I consider to be the most serious one, it caused separation for longer than was necessary between O and her parents; and, second, the cost to the public purse.

I accept that the Family Court may criticise experts in the way in which they have carried out their duties, but I am not, in these circumstances, prepared to join with the advocates and the mother and the father in that criticism and in the way they want to progress matters.

I say that for the following reasons. First, before I could make a criticism of Dr Rose and Professor Stivaros, I would need to give them the opportunity to allow me to hear from them. I would therefore need to artificially keep these proceedings alive to pursue a side investigation into their conduct. It is highly likely that they would instruct lawyers. There is likely to be a hearing. They will want their costs if they persuade me that I should not criticise them.

Second, this is not the appropriate forum to conduct what is, in effect, professional conduct litigation. The Family Court is to deal with family issues, not professional conduct issues. There are other venues to pursue complaints against doctors if any party considers that appropriate, and my understanding, though I have heard no submissions on this, is no leave from me is required to put information from these proceedings before a professional conduct body. I am referring to Family Procedure Rules 12.75(1)(d).

Third, albeit this application is expressed in terms of a failure to analyse and engage with other views, at the heart of this complaint is the question, ‘Whose view is right as to the cause of these injuries?’ I have already expressed my view as to the approach that the Court will take on the care application given the conflict in medical evidence and the other factors in this case. It is not appropriate to use that conclusion to say that it is wrong for Stivaros and Rose to have expressed their interpretation of the likely causes of these injuries.

Expert opinion can differ. That is why there may be permission to call more than one expert, and that is why the Court would be required to look at all the circumstances of the case, not merely the medical opinion evidence.

I do see force in the argument that the Family Court should police its own experts, but I do not accept that goes so far as to require satellite litigation pursued under the cover of a withdrawn care application. It might have been different if I had heard from Stivaros and Rose and if they had failed to engage in cross examination. That however has not happened and I have no reason to believe it would have happened. It is not sensible, when I am bringing these proceedings to an end, to open a side issue and thereby keep them alive.

None of what I have just said is meant to take away from the sadness and anger that the parents must feel at what has happened to them. All I can say is that the Local Authority here have kept an open mind and agreed to further experts being appointed. Further, I would draw to everyone’s attention, that the Local Authority pushed me to agree to that appointment. These new experts have said that the parents’ explanation as to the fall may be able to explain all the injuries. Blackpool have accepted that, and I have accepted that in the light of the totality of the evidence. I am not going to continue these proceedings to conduct a further inquiry.