Mother wins appeal over ‘pool finding’ in relation to bruising on her son

In B (A Child: Uncertain Perpetrator), Re [2026] EWCA Civ 1024 Lord Justice Peter Jackson said the mother had appealed against a ‘pool finding’ that there was a real possibility that she was responsible for inflicting bruising on her son.

Alfie, aged between 18 and 21 months at the relevant time, sustained multiple injuries including very serious fractures while in the care of his mother and her former partner.

Peter Jackson LJ said the mother’s former partner deliberately inflicted serious injuries on Alfie on eight separate occasions.

Alfie is now in foster care and the court heard he will require support to help him re-write the narrative of early trauma experiences.

The Court of Appeal judge said that in “an otherwise compelling and unchallenged judgment”, HHJ Richard Case did not appear to have taken meaningful account of the potential significance of his very serious findings against the former partner when assessing the likelihood that he was not also responsible for some more minor injuries.

“Nor, having assessed the evidence of the applicant, does he appear to have attempted to assess the [former partner’s] evidence about them.”

Peter Jackson LJ said the appeal would be allowed, the pool finding set aside and that a finding substituted that the bruises were on the balance of probabilities inflicted by the former partner.

Counsel for the mother argued HHJ Case’s findings about these bruises were perplexing as, in contrast to all his other findings, he did not assess the evidence as a whole or weigh the wider evidence of the former partners’ violence and dishonesty, or that he had not found the mother had ever handled Alfie roughly.

Judge Case also did not take account of the mother’s youth, vulnerability or the impact of cannabis on memory, counsel said.

The local authority concerned argued findings of fact should only be overturned if plainly wrong or rationally insupportable and said HHJ Case’s conclusions were well within the range of those permissible.

Peter Jackson LJ said: “However, and despite the manifest care that the judge took in reaching his decision, I regret that in this limited but potentially significant respect – attribution of responsibility for the three areas of bruising – he did fall into error…

“First, and in contrast to his approach to the other injuries, he focused almost entirely on the mother’s own evidence about the single week in which the bruises were inflicted.”

HHJ Case had identified some inconsistencies in the mother’s accounts, but “did not explain why they led to the conclusion that the mother might have injured Alfie, as opposed to her being a poor or forgetful witness in relation to some of his least serious injuries when asked about them over time.

“Nor did he explain why the inconsistencies were so significant that they prevailed over the strong inferences that arose from all the other evidence.”

Peter Jackson LJ said HHJ Case “did not evaluate and compare compelling features of the case”.

In contrast to the findings made on the former partner’s assaults on Alfie, there was no evidence that Alfie had suffered inflicted injury in the first 18 months of his life, before the former partner joined the household.

Peter Jackson LJ said the mother’s evidence received detailed scrutiny while the partner’s evidence, “such as it was, was not interrogated at all.

“The inability to carry out a fully balanced assessment arose from events outside the court’s control, but the judge should then have exercised caution when reaching conclusions on the basis of the mother’s evidence alone.”

He set aside the pool finding and said: “The only proper conclusion is that it is more likely than not that the bruising injuries were also caused by the [former partner].” Lord Justice Newey and Lady Justice Falk both agreed.

Mark Smulian