Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: A Council v B [2007] EWHC 2395 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : a-council-v-b-2007-ewhc-2395-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 19, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88229

(Family Division; Charles J; 19 October 2007)

Following a fact-finding hearing the judge found it impossible either to make findings of sexual abuse or to dismiss such findings as unfounded, largely because of the lack of credibility of all members of the family including the children. On the present state of the authorities, in care proceedings the court should strive to reach a conclusion whether it was more likely than not that a child had or had not been the victim of inflicted serious harm or abuse, and if the finding was that the child had been the victim of such harm, a conclusion as to the identity of the perpetrator. But having made that effort, the court might be driven to the conclusion that it could not reach a conclusion and that on the evidence it could not make a finding to the civil standard, so that both the relevant accusation and denial remained real possibilities. Given that the court making the disposal or welfare decision could, in the case of an uncertain perpetrator, examine the degree of likelihood that a person was the perpetrator of proved inflicted harm, the question arose whether it should be able to do the same when the real possibility related to the infliction of harm, rather than who inflicted it.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from