Call us: Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm, Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm

Father with learning difficulties needed assistance with his child

A father with learning difficulties may have caused injuries to his baby but “no one took any steps to obtain assistance for him in caring” for the child, a judge declared in a recently published case.

Re A was a retrial. At a previous fact-finding hearing, the man had been declared responsible for the head injuries, suffered when the baby was six months old. The baby, called ‘A’ in case reports, was subsequently taken into care.

However, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial, saying the original judge had not taken sufficient account of the man’s learning difficulties and he had not, therefore, had a fair hearing.

At the fresh hearing, in the Family Division of the High Court, the man was provided with a special intermediary and the participating solicitors and barristers were instructed in the most effective ways to talk to him.

Mr Justice Baker  discussed the issues faced by disabled parents caught up in care proceedings. He concluded:

“I, therefore, find that A suffered a comparatively minor head injury…whilst in the father’s care…. I absolve the mother from any responsibility for the injuries and there is to my mind no evidence that she has failed to protect A in any way. I do not accept the suggestion that she is to be criticised for ringing NHS Direct rather than 999. A’s symptoms were not so obviously serious that the emergency services were required.”

He added:

“I anticipate that, as a result of my findings, the local authority may now move quickly to restore A to the care of her mother who has been having increased contact in recent months.”

Turning to the father, he declared:

“It is possible that the injuries sustained by A were attributable in part to the father’s imperfect understanding of risk to a small baby. Some people were aware that the father did not fully understand the risk, yet no one took any steps to obtain assistance for him in caring for A. Now that the risk has been identified, the father will, I hope, receive assistance, but plainly more needs to be done in other cases to identify and address such risks at an earlier stage.”

The man should remain part of his daughter’s life, the judge continued.

“Although it is too early to make a final decision on the details of his future contact with his daughter, my provisional view is that it is likely to be in A’s best interests to have regular contact with her father as she grows up so that he can play a role in her life.”

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers based across our family law offices who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. As well as pieces from our family law solicitors, guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Contact us

As the UK's largest family law firm we understand that every case is personal.


  1. Tristan says:

    One can but hope the evidence was convincing. Too often with family court, it’s more a case of a judge sticking his finger in the wind.

  2. Clare Wakeman says:

    i have learning difficulties and im 37 now but when my kids was stole from me i learnt myself to read and rite and i started doing arts and crafts and learning other parents only because tou have a disability and learning difficulties doesnt mean you are thick it just means you need extra support and its discrimination and its so wrong

  3. Luke says:

    I think that from what we have here the Judge made a sensible decision.

Leave a comment

Help & advice categories


Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for advice on divorce and relationships from our lawyers, divorce coaches and relationship experts.

What type of information are you looking for?

Privacy Policy