Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re B (Fact-Finding Hearing: Evidence)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:35 PM
Slug : re-b-fact-finding-hearing-evidence
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 26, 2008, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88635

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Lawrence Collins and Goldring LJJ; 18 November 2008)

The 3-month-old child had suffered injuries, including a fractured skull, a fractured rib and two fractured vertebrae. The mother had complained of the father's rough handling of the child, including occasions on which he had dropped the child. At the fact-finding hearing the judge stated that it was not correct to approach the case on the basis of whether the injuries had been 'accidental' or 'non-accidental'; rather, the correct approach was to consider whether 'the harm, or likelihood of harm, was attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him', under Children Act 1989, s 31(2)(b)(i). He went on to find that the father had injured the child accidentally, but in a way that could be described as gross carelessness or recklessness, and that his care for the child fell well below the standard of care expected of a parent. He went on to find that the father's account had been unconvincing, but considered that differences between the parents' accounts were not significant. He was critical of certain agreed expert evidence, stating that the report's findings were 'inherently unlikely'. He found the threshold criteria had been established. The local authority appealed, arguing that the judicial findings had been inconsistent.

The local authority appeal was allowed. The judge had exonerated the mother entirely and the father substantially without a clear picture of the parents' credibility, whereas it had been crucial to evaluate carefully the differences in the accounts offered by the parents. The judge's findings as to the child's fractured rib and vertebrae did not square with the evidence. His dismissal of the agreed expert evidence had been completely unacceptable; any queries about the experts' report should have been raised in the course of the trial.

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