Case No. EWFC-47

38.The question that I have to decide is not whether O suffered significant harm within the mearing of s31 CA 1989. I am dealing with S and B. Neither of them has suffered significant harm. What I have to decide is whether either of them is likely to suffer significant harm as a result of the care that is likely to be given to them by one or other of the parents, based on what happened to O.39.I first consider S. The relevant date is the date of his birth, when protective arrangements were put into place. This was almost two years after the fracture to O’s leg. One of the parents must have been responsible for causing O to be injured, even if they do not now remember the event after so much has happened. Does a one-off event like this involving a parent who has demonstrated no other propensity to violent, dangerous or even careless behaviour with a child either before or in the two years afterwards lead inevitably to a finding that a newborn baby is at risk?40.Mr Vater KC for the mother, supported by Ms Chapman for the father, submits that, as well as all the positive evidence that was available as at the date of the proceedings, I am entitled to take into account all the evidence about the parents and their relationship with the children from the detailed observations of the social work agency which has been supervising them 24 hours a day since October 2022. This, he says is ‘after acquired’ information which can go to prove whether or not the state of affairs as alleged at the time protective arrangements were put into place existed. In other words, we now have a lot of evidence to show that neither of these parents is volatile, temperamental or aggressive even in the face of the very significant stress of caring for two children with strangers in their home all the time.41.After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that at the relevant date S was not likely to suffer significant harm. Whilst his older brother did suffer an injury, this was a single event in unknown circumstances over two years before these proceedings were started. Apart from this there is no evidence that either of the parents has a problem with anger or aggression albeit there are some arguments about changing nappies or going to the pub. The parents have cooperated with the professionals throughout (including the investigation into O’s death) and they appear to have interacted openly and honestly with them, without rancour.42.In the intervening period between O’s death and S’s birth the local authority evidence was overall that B received good care from her mother in the home they all share. Whilst the parenting assessment raises some issues as to the relationship between B and her stepfather the day-to-day observations have not raised major concerns.43.There is enough evidence now to show that there is a strong and loving bond between S and both his mother and father. That bond could not have been there in the same way at the time S was born, but the after acquired evidence does assist in proving that the mother and father are loving and caring and able to weather stress. In those circumstances, I do not find that there was a real possibility that S would suffer significant harm by way of being injured in the care of his parents at the time of his birth in August 2022. The same is true now.44.It follows that I find that the threshold criteria are not met in relation to S. I also find the same to be true of B. The case so far as B was concerned was never so compelling because not only has she never suffered any injury, but she is also now older and less vulnerable.45.A week before the case commenced, I was invited to vacate the fact finding hearing and to bring the proceedings to an end. This application was made by the father but supported by those representing the mother. It was also supported by the local authority who had made it clear for some time that the care plan they were proposing, whether or not the court made any findings, would be the same. The Guardian was given little notice of the local authority position, and at that hearing invited the court to proceed to hear the evidence. I agreed with the Guardian’s stance and have heard the case.46.There will be cases where there is no advantage in proceeding with a fact-finding hearing, as demonstrated by the decision of Lieven J in