Tracey Hennessey, instructed by Catherine Young of Churchers Solicitors and led by Lucy Hendry K.C. & Richard Carroll instructed by Chris King of Biscoes Solictors and led by Aiden Vine K.C. appeared in A, B and C (Children: Perpetrator Finding) [2026] EWCA Civ 219 (6 March 2026) involving Care proceedings and an Appeal by mother against finding that injury to child was inflicted by her.
Summary
An appellate court will not disturb a first-instance perpetrator finding unless there is a clear basis for intervention. Weight, credibility and factual inference are primarily for the trial judge. Similar fact authorities on admissibility do not control family fact-finding where the issue is the weight of evidence. Once the judge finds on the balance of probabilities who caused the injury, there is no separate need to apply a pool-of-perpetrators analysis. Reasons must show the route to decision, but they need not answer every submission.
Factual background
This appeal arose from care proceedings concerning three children and a fact-finding hearing before HH Judge Magee in the Family Court at Portsmouth.
The judge found that the mother caused an incomplete fracture to C’s left humerus and that she delayed seeking medical attention. The mother appealed, arguing that the judge gave insufficient weight to other evidence, failed properly to assess the father’s propensity, and failed to explain why her conclusion was preferred.
The Court of Appeal therefore considered whether the findings were open to the judge on the evidence, and whether the judge was required to go further in identifying the perpetrator of the injury.
Held
(1) The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the mother inflicted C’s fracture.
(2) Appellate restraint was central. Findings of fact, witness credibility and the weight attached to evidence belong primarily to the trial judge. An appellate court will intervene only for a clear justification. [2014] EWCA Civ 5; [2022] EWCA Civ 464.
(3) The challenge based on the maternal grandmother’s evidence failed. Her evidence was of limited relevance to the central finding, and the judge was entitled to treat the mother’s account as unreliable.
(4) The challenge based on the paternal grandmother’s evidence also failed. The judge had considered the alleged minimisation of the father’s behaviour and was entitled to conclude that it did not undermine her account of the overnight contact.
(5) The father’s history of anger and aggression was relevant, but it did not compel a different outcome. The Court held that the similar fact authorities cited by the mother concerned admissibility, not the weight to be given in family proceedings. [2016] UKSC 55; [2020] EWCA Civ 1088.
(6) The judge was not required to conduct a further pool-of-perpetrators analysis once she had found, on the civil standard, that the mother was the perpetrator. Nor was she required to deal with every argument in detail. Her reasons were sufficient to show the principles applied and the route to decision.
(7) The lead judgment added that a chronological analysis would have been preferable, because it might have assisted with timing as well as perpetration. That was a comment on good practice, not a basis for allowing the appeal.
For the full judgement please click on the link https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/219
