Re Beth [2026] EWFC 156 (B): Family Court identifies perpetrator of non-accidental injuries in infant fact-finding proceedings

The Family Court at Swindon has made a specific perpetrator finding in care proceedings concerning Beth (anonymised), an infant now aged two, concluding that the Mother's then partner, referred to as the Intervenor, inflicted three serious non-accidental injuries whilst caring for Beth alone on 2 April 2025. His Honour Judge Richard Case delivered the fact-finding judgement in proceedings brought by Wiltshire Council, reported at [2026] EWFC 156 (B).

Beth sustained a spiral fracture of the left femur, bruising under the right eye, and bruising on the outside of the right knee. The injuries came to light on the evening of 2 April 2025 when the Mother attended a walk-in centre, where bruising below Beth's right eye prompted a safeguarding referral. A ward round the following morning identified pain and swelling consistent with a femoral fracture, subsequently confirmed by X-ray. Beth underwent surgery at Southampton General Hospital and has since made a full recovery.

Expert evidence from a paediatric radiologist and paediatrician established that none of the injuries could have resulted from everyday handling, that no underlying medical condition was relevant, and that the injuries would have been evident to anyone present when they occurred. The fracture would have caused significant pain and prevented normal weight-bearing from the point of injury.

Drawing on digital records, witness evidence and medical timing, HHJ Case narrowed the injury window to the period between approximately 17.30 and 18.30 on 2 April 2025, during which Beth was in the Intervenor's sole care. Activity corroborated by expert evidence, including Beth walking at a farm and playing on a ride-on toy earlier that day, established that no injury had been sustained before the Mother left.

HHJ Case found that the Intervenor inflicted all three injuries. The complete absence of any recollection of an incident or pain response during the relevant period, against established medical evidence as to the expected consequences of such injuries, was a significant factor in that conclusion. The Intervenor's denial was further undermined by his subsequent conduct: he concealed from police in interviews in both April and October 2025 that IMP, his mother's violent partner, had been present in the home at the material time, and had sent a Snapchat message to the Mother shortly afterwards asking her to deny that IMP had touched Beth. The court accepted that dishonesty was explicable by fear of IMP rather than as evidence of IMP's actual involvement in the injuries.

The Mother was found not to have inflicted the injuries. She was unaware that IMP was present on 2 April 2025 and had no prior reason to regard the Intervenor as a risk to Beth.

The section 31 threshold was nonetheless found to be met in relation to the Mother by reference to future risk. After April 2025, the Mother continued a relationship with the Intervenor knowing he was at the very least a possible perpetrator, and lied to police about the extent of that contact over the summer of 2025. She had also permitted Beth to spend time in a home where IMP, whom she regarded as "nasty" and a risk, had been present on previous visits. Taken together, those findings established a deficit in the Mother's ability to recognise and respond to risk, giving rise to a real possibility of future significant harm in her care.

Beth remains in the care of her maternal great aunt under an Interim Care Order.

Re Beth (a child)(Fact Finding: Fracture and Bruising) [2026] EWFC 156 (B). His Honour Judge Richard Case. Family Court at Swindon. 26 June 2026. Dylan Morgan (counsel instructed by Wiltshire Council) for the applicant. Elisabeth Hudson (counsel for the first respondent mother). Ruth Slader (solicitor for the second respondent father). Neelo Shravat (counsel for the intervenor). James Vatcher (counsel for the child via Guardian Jane Gould).