Abstract
This article examines the decision in London Borough of Croydon v D and Anor [2024] EWFC 438, where the Family Court dismissed allegations of non-accidental injury made against Afghan parents of premature twins. The judgment raises concerns about cultural bias, inadequate interpretation, and misuse of paediatric evidence in safeguarding proceedings. Set against the context of recent national safeguarding reviews, this analysis explores the implications for procedural fairness and evidential integrity. It advocates reform in the instruction of experts, the early use of interpreters, and the cultural assumptions embedded in professional safeguarding practice.
A Case That Exposed Systemic Failures
In Croydon v D, Her Honour Judge Kathryn Major dismissed serious allegations of non-accidental injury, citing flawed medical evidence and a broader pattern of professional misjudgement. The case underscores how linguistic inaccuracy, cultural misunderstanding, and evidential bias can distort safeguarding assessments and result in miscarriages of justice, particularly for racially minoritised families.
Misused Expertise and Reversed Burdens
A key element of the local authority’s case was the evidence of Dr Cleghorn, a consultant paediatrician. Her report was criticised for multiple errors, including confusion over the twins’ identities, misinterpretation of growth data, and failure to consider accidental causes or underlying medical conditions. Most strikingly, her conclusion that the injuries “must have been inflicted” improperly reversed the burden of proof, contrary to the principle that the onus rests with the party alleging harm (Children Act 1989, section 31).
Under cross-examination by Professor Jo Delahunty KC, Dr Cleghorn’s evidence was described as “appalling,” “terrifying,” and “an utter disaster.” The judgment reinforced the essential role of expert scrutiny in maintaining the reliability of evidence presented to the Family Court.
Lessons on Expert Evidence and Burden of Proof
The court condemned prejudicial assumptions made by professionals, including unsupported suggestions that the parents were “milking the system” or “fabricating illness.” These conclusions lacked evidential basis and reflected cultural bias. The judge highlighted the risk of applying Western norms to evaluate the credibility of the mother, who was isolated, non-English speaking, and operating at the borderline of cognitive ability.
In line with Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11, the court reiterated that assessments must be based on evidence, not stereotype. The ruling further echoes standards set in A County Council v A Mother and Others [2005] EWHC Fam 31, affirming that professionals must remain within the limits of their expertise and consider all plausible explanations.
The Dangers of Linguistic and Cultural Misinterpretation
The decision also criticised the reliance on early parental statements obtained without accurate interpretation. Inadequate interpretation at initial stages led to miscommunication, which was subsequently granted undue weight. Re A (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 1718 confirmed that well-supported later testimony may outweigh initial statements given in compromised circumstances.
Racial Bias in Child Protection: A National Concern
The findings in Croydon v D reflect broader systemic issues identified by the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel in its 2025 thematic review. The review found that racial bias is rarely acknowledged in child protection decision-making. Of 54 serious case reviews involving Black, Asian, and mixed-heritage children, many failed to assess how race or racism influenced outcomes (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2025).
Supporting research by the NSPCC and Community Care confirms that unconscious bias and racialised assumptions about parenting often influence professional responses. Such bias can result in the misinterpretation of cultural norms as risk indicators, raising thresholds for intervention inappropriately and compromising procedural fairness.
The Persistent Silence on Race in Review Processes
Equally concerning is the continued omission of race in many safeguarding reviews. Even where institutional racism clearly affects families, reviews often avoid direct engagement with the issue. As highlighted in Community Care reporting (Samuel, 2024; Badger, 2025), this silence leads to generic recommendations that overlook structural inequalities.
Until race is explicitly addressed in service design, review frameworks, and safeguarding practice, outcomes for minoritised families will remain inconsistent and unequal.
Reclaiming Fairness in the Family Court
The judgment in Croydon v D reasserts key principles of fairness in the Family Court. It affirms that the burden of proof lies with the accuser, that expert evidence must be thoroughly examined, and that interpretation must be accurate and culturally competent. As reiterated in A County Council v KD and L [2005] 1 FLR 851, all evidence must be assessed in its full context.
The ruling challenges legal and safeguarding professionals to address bias and to uphold fairness irrespective of ethnicity, language, or class. It marks a critical moment for reflection and reform in the culture of family justice.
Monique Simone Fremder , Inner Temple Scholar – Profumo, Exhibition, and Duke of Edinburgh Scholarships