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

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