Uncertain perpetrator

In Re O & v (minors); In Re B (a minor) (H of L TLR 4 April)

It would be grotesque where it had been proved to the requisite standard of proof that a child was suffering significant harm or was likely to do so, if the court had to proceed on the footing that, because neither parent, considered individually, had been proved to be the perpetrator, therefore the child was not at risk from either of them. The preferable interpretation was that the court could proceed on the footing that each of the possible perpetrators was, indeed just that: a possible perpetrator. A parent’s concern that, once the possibility that he or she was perpetrator was brought into the scales, cautious social workers would let that factor outweigh all others was understandable. Whether that concern was well-founded or not, the way ahead could not be for cases to proceed upon an artificial footing. Rather, in cases of split hearings, judges must be astute to express such views as they could at the preliminary hearing to assist social workers and psychiatrists in making their assessments and preparing the draft care plan. For their part, social workers should have well in mind the need to consider all the circumstances when assessing the risk posed by a carer who was, but who was no more than, a possible perpetrator.