We represented a parent in care proceedings involving serious allegations of Non-Accidental Injury. The injuries sustained by the child included multiple fractures and extensive bruising. At the time of the family proceedings, there were also ongoing criminal investigations.

Multiple medical experts were instructed, including a geneticist, paediatric radiologist, paediatric haematologist, and paediatrician, to provide specialist opinions on the nature and possible causes of the injuries.

A separate Fact-Finding Hearing was listed where the court considered the allegations of harm.. The Court made a ‘pool’ finding against our client, meaning it was unable to identify one person who caused the harm, but was able to identify the possibility if it being more than one person (i.e. a ‘pool’ of perpetrators). Despite this, our client remained resolute in denying they had caused the injuries.

Following the Fact-Finding Hearing, it was successfully argued that our client should undergo a ‘Resolutions’-based parenting assessment. Max stated: “this type of assessment in my view is not utilised enough in these sorts of proceedings. The type of assessment is specifically used where findings of harm have been made against a parent and these findings are denied – the assessment is aimed at exploring whether that parent can still resume the care of their child combining assessment and therapeutic practices to achieve the best outcome for the children involved”.

In this case, the assessment proved to be the right approach for our client. It ultimately resulted in positive recommendations for the children to return to their care, keeping the family together.

Our client was represented by Max Konarek, Partner and Joint Head of the Family & Childcare Department, assisted by Alison Barar, Caseworker from our Kent team. Max instructed Jo Porter of 42BR Barristers and our in-house barrister, Jodie Mole.