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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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