In G, In the Matter Of [2026] EWFC 227 (B) the Family Court declined to find that a young child’s unexplained arm fracture was inflicted, emphasising that opportunity, inconsistent accounts and understandable suspicion could not fill an evidential gap where accidental injury remained a realistic possibility.
The Family Court considered whether G, a young toddler, had suffered a non-accidental fracture to his left humerus and, if so, whether either parent was responsible. The Local Authority alleged that the injury resulted from significant twisting force and sought findings against the mother and/or father.
Medical evidence established that the fracture was unusual and required considerable force, but neither expert could conclude that it was more likely to have been inflicted than accidental. An unwitnessed fall remained a possible explanation.
HHJ Hesford emphasised that the burden remained on the Local Authority and that the parents were not required to explain how the injury occurred. Opportunity, inconsistencies in their evidence, previous poor judgment and delay in obtaining treatment did not establish causation. The court could not bridge the gap between suspicion and proof without speculation. The allegations that the fracture was inflicted and that either parent caused it were therefore dismissed.
Craig Jeakings, instructed by HRS Family Law Solicitors, represented the first respondent Mother.
