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

CARE: Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v GW and PW [2007] EWHC 136 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:08 PM
Slug : oldham-metropolitan-borough-council-v-gw-and-pw-2007-ewhc-136-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 20, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86927

(Family Division; Ryder J; 20 March 2007)

The parents were suspected of inflicting a non-accidental injury on the baby. In the course of the care proceedings a finding of non-accidental injury was made, and the parents were separated from the child for 12 months. It was ultimately established that the child was suffering from a rare condition, that there had been no non-accidental injury, and that the care of the child by the parents had always been exemplary.

A family court and the expert who advised it had got the case wrong and it was important to undertake an analysis of what had gone wrong both in terms of expert evidence and court processes. Local authorities should always write a letter of instruction when asking a potential witness for a report or an opinion, within proceedings or pre-proceedings, conforming to the principles set out by the Family Justice Council. When requesting and collating existing materials, all parties should be vigilant to record requests of third parties for disclosure and their responses. It was no longer sufficient, in difficult cases, for the experts to leave the question of whether there should be a forensic second opinion to the courts; the court was entitled to ask whether alternative expert evidence was necessary and if so, in which discipline. Experts ought also to be asked at the earliest stage what questions they thought they or another expert should answer. Experts should be asked not only whether their opinion was mainstream or orthodox, and what the range of orthodox opinion might be, but also whether within that range of opinions the answer might be that the cause of an injury was unknown, highlighting the unusual features of the case that might indicate contrary interpretations. In essence they should take the court through the differential diagnosis, highlighting any contradictory or inconsistent features. The court and experts generally might have become too focused in trying to reach agreed solutions to difficult problems; areas of disagreement might be as important as areas of agreement.

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