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

FACT-FINDING HEARING: Re A (Fact-Finding Hearing: Non-Accidental Injury)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:09 PM
Slug : fact-finding-hearing-re-a-fact-finding-hearing-non-accidental-injury
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 11, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103053

(Court of Appeal, Rimer, Tomlinson, McFarlane LJJ, 4 July 2013)

The two children were removed from the parents' care after one of the children attended hospital and was found to have sustained fractured ribs.

During proceedings the judge heard from the parents, health visitor and medical experts and found that while the parents' explanations for the injuries were highly unlikely it was not possible to conclude that the injuries were non-accidental. The local authority appealed.

It was well established that the appeal court had to allow the trial judge, who had heard all the parties' evidence first hand, a wide margin of discretion when deciding whether to interfere with the decision. This judge had been entitled to depart from the medical expert view and provided an explanation as to why she had done so. An important factor was that the judge had heard the parents given evidence and had been impressed by them. It was not for this court to second-guess the judge.

The appeal was dismissed. 

 

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