Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
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