The Family Court has declined to find that a 15-month-old child’s serious intracranial and spinal injuries were inflicted, holding that, despite shaking being the medically favoured explanation, the evidence considered as a whole did not establish inflicted injury on the balance of probabilities in Ellana (A Child) (Fact-Finding: Head Injury), Re [2026] EWFC 272 (B).
The Family Court considered care proceedings concerning 15-month-old Ellana, who suffered acute subdural haemorrhages around the brain and a substantial spinal subdural haematoma. The court found that the injury occurred during a short period when Ellana was in her mother’s sole care, excluding the father as a possible perpetrator.
Medical evidence favoured forceful shaking as the explanation and considered the reported low-level fall unlikely to account for the severity of the injuries. However, an unusual accidental response or unidentified mechanism could not be excluded. The court emphasised that expert evidence had to be assessed alongside the wider evidential picture, including the parents’ generally reliable evidence, absence of recognised risk factors and almost a year of supervised care without concern.
Although finely balanced, the Local Authority had not proved, on the balance of probability, that the mother inflicted the injuries or that they resulted from deficient parental care. Accordingly, the section 31 threshold was not established.
Stephen was instructed by Reeds Solicitors for the Third Respondent child by her Child’s Guardian.
