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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re A and B (Withdrawal of Fact-Finding Hearing)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:55 PM
Slug : care-proceedings-re-a-and-b-withdrawal-of-fact-finding-hearing
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 6, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 104229

(Sir Mark Hedley, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, 29 January 2013)

The youngest of three siblings died at 10 weeks with extensive injuries including all three features of the triad. During care proceedings one medical opinion was that these were non-accidental injuries while another was that the child's skull was of such an unusual nature that it was impossible to conclude how it would react to any level of force and, therefore, it was not possible to determine the mechanism of the injury let alone attribute parental culpability. In previous proceedings the mother was found responsible for three fractures sustained by the middle child who was then placed with the paternal grandmother while the oldest child returned home. The youngest child was born at around that time and the entire family was subject to close supervision and local authority scrutiny.

The local authority had now concluded that the interests of the children required the eventual reunification of the family and now sought permission to withdraw the fact-finding hearing.

The local authority was granted permission to withdraw the fact-finding hearing. In respect of bruising caused to the middle child, the injury matched the history and the requisite standard of proof that this was non-accidental would not be met. A fact-finding hearing of the issue of bruising would be disproportionate, unnecessary and unjustifiable.

In future management of the case the parents had to be treated on the basis that they bore no culpable responsibility for the death of the youngest child or bruising to the middle child. A welfare hearing could now take place. 

 

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