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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

FACT-FINDING HEARING: Re L and M [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:09 PM
Slug : fact-finding-hearing-re-l-and-m-2013-ewhc-1569-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 24, 2013, 09:50 AM
Article ID : 102907

(Family Division, Baker J, 4 June 2013)

The 6-month-old child was taken to the GP by the father due to concerns of swelling on her head. She was referred to the hospital where she was found to have sustained ‘spectacular' multiple skull and rib fractures, although no brain injury was present. In care proceedings in relation to the girl and her older brother the judge found the injuries had been inflicted non-accidentally by the parents. However, that decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal ([2012] EWCA Civ 1710, [2013] 2 FLR forthcoming) and the case was remitted for retrial.

In preparation for retrial, Dr Stoodley, consultant paediatric neuroradiologist was instructed and he prepared a report which challenged some of the basic assumptions upon which the original experts had based their conclusions. Primarily his interpretation of the imaging showed that what had originally been thought to be fractures were in fact accessory sutures. Although unusual, Dr Stoodley had convincingly demonstrated by reference to 3D reconstruction the striking symmetry between the lucencies that he proposed as accessory sutures. Therefore, the number of skull fractures was reduced from 8-10 to 4. The most likely explanation for the skull fractures without the incidence of any brain damage was an eggshell skull which absorbed the impact causing the fractures.

The parents' account of how the injuries were sustained was hesitant and unreliable and the judge found they had not been truthful about the incidents. The local authority had proved on the balance of probabilities that the child sustained the injuries non-accidentally whilst in the care of one or both of the parents. It was not possible to say whether they occurred in one incident or which parent was responsible. 

 

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