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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
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