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...
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles

FACT-FINDING HEARING: Re M (Fact-Finding Hearing: Injuries to Skull) [2012] EWCA Civ 1710

Sep 29, 2018, 18:37 PM
Slug : fact-finding-hearing-re-m-fact-finding-hearing-injuries-to-skull-2012-ewca-civ-1710
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 7, 2013, 10:24 AM
Article ID : 101301

(Court of Appeal, Munby, Kitchin LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley, 20 December 2012)

The 5-month-old child was admitted to hospital with 3 rib fractures and complex bilateral skull fractures although fortunately did not suffer the very serious brain injuries which would ordinarily accompany fractures of that severity. The parents claimed that several weeks prior to the hospital admission the mother had squeezed the child's chest to avoid dropping her as she fell out of the bath. The father claimed that on the day before admission he had dropped the child and she had hit her head on a low table before she hit the floor.

During a fact-finding hearing experts described the child's skull fractures as spectacular and beyond anything they had seen before in a child of this age. An abnormal bone fragility was ruled out. The fact that she suffered no apparent pain or neurological facts was said to be not just unusual but inexplicable. None of the experts was able to come up with an explanation as that went beyond what each acknowledged was speculation.

The judge found that the evidence was weighted in favour of finding that it was more likely than not that the parents had not told the truth about what happened to the child. She was not able to identify which parent was responsible for the injuries and therefore both parents remained in the pool of possible perpetrators. The parents appealed.

The judge had failed to explain how in light of the expert evidence she was able to arrive at her conclusion. Her refusal to find that there was something unexplained and beyond current medical knowledge was inconsistent with the expert evidence and required a more convincing process of reasoning. The judgment was set aside and remitted for re-hearing before a judge of the Family Division.

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