Barry McAlinden acted for the local authority in care proceedings concerning a 16-month-old child PM. The local authority sought care and placement orders for PM.
One of the key issues in the case was whether PM’s several unexplained injuries were inflicted deliberately by his mother, PM’s sole carer. The mother had a significant mental health history, including an admission to a mental health unit from January to April 2023 with psychosis.
Background to the proceedings
In July 2024, when PM was 4 months old, the mother and PM were taken in an ambulance to UCLH. The mother had called emergency services after a kitchen fire.
Before this, on the very same day, separate home visits by the allocated social worker, guardian and health visitor revealed unexplained injuries to PM and his mother.
These visits were made in accordance with an existing child protection plan under an interim supervision order.
At the hospital, PM was found to have 12 marks to his face, head, knees, fingers and toes, 10 of which the assessing doctor considered to be non-accidental in nature.
PM was taken into police protection, and the mother was arrested for child cruelty. The father was abroad at the time visiting his critically ill mother.
PM was made subject to an interim care order and the court approved his interim separation from his mother and placement in foster care.
As well as concerns over the injuries and the risk of significant physical harm to PM in his mother's care, the local authority threshold document set out:
- the risk of physical and psychological harm from his parents’ mental health and substance/alcohol issues, and
- the risk of emotional and physical harm through exposure to parental conflict, abusive and threatening behaviour.
Injuries to the child
The assessing doctor in hospital had found that the mother’s explanations were inconsistent with the abrasions on PM’s knees. Also it was unlikely that the bruise on the right side of PM's face had been caused by her dropping her phone.
Expert opinion
The single joint expert, a consultant paediatrician, described 'multiple abrasions' which were 'suggestive of application of significant force and most likely to be non-accidental (inflicted)'.
In cross-examination, he agreed with Barry that the angles of the abrasion injuries on different aspects of PM's body and the difference in the appearance of the injuries were indicative multiple events.
Court findings
The court found the explanations offered by the mother and maternal grandfather to be 'confusing'. The mother’s evidence was also contradictory, for example she maintained that she had not seen the extent of injuries to PM but accepted that she had changed PM and had seen the injuries when changing him.
The father’s evidence was described as a 'combination of selective frankness and concerning lack of insight' which 'tended to minimise the concerns'.
The court made the following findings.
- 6 abrasion injuries consistent with friction burns that were caused deliberately by the mother and laceration on the forehead and bruising on the face and skull were caused negligently by the mother. The mother would have known that PM was injured and in significant pain, and she had deliberately concealed the injuries, including by slathering him in Sudocrem.
- Both parents suffered from a combination of mental health diagnoses and substance misuse that impacted adversely on their ability to care for PM such that he would be at risk of psychological and physical harm were he to live with either parent.
- The overall picture as to the parental dynamic was unclear, and while the court was unable to make a finding of coercive behaviour, it found that the father had been controlling towards the mother. The relationship between the mother and father put PM at risk of exposure to parental conflict, abusive and threatening behaviour, resulting in emotional and psychological harm to PM.
Court order
The court agreed with the professionals’ unanimous view that no amount of work or support could be put in place to mitigate the risks to PM, if placed in the care of his mother, father or maternal grandfather.
It was held that PM’s welfare would be safeguarded and promoted by the making of a care order and a placement order.
The court approved the local authority’s plan for adoption.
Read the judgment in full in London Borough of Camden v M & Ors [2025] EWFC 353 (B)