Duty of care in Children Act proceedings

D v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council; H v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council CA TLR 24 January

H, then aged five months, suffered fractures while in the care of his parents. Under an interim care order, H resided for 12 weeks with his parents at a family resource centre in Bristol for a risk assessment. No risk assessment was undertaken and after a contested hearing, the interim care order was renewed and H was placed with foster parents, being separated from his mother for the first time. It was subsequently accepted that H suffered from brittle bone disease, osteogenesis imperfecta, and that the injuries were not the result of non-accidental injury. A risk assessment advised H’s speedy rehabilitation with his parents, which duly followed. The mother brought proceedings for damages claiming that the four-month separation from her son caused her psychological shock and upset, and the allegation that she had harmed him resulted in her becoming depressed. The mother also instituted proceedings on behalf of H based on negligence, claiming that H had suffered as a result of the care proceedings.