Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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