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

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re M (Care Proceedings: Best Evidence)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : re-m-care-proceedings-best-evidence
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 16, 2007, 10:34 AM
Article ID : 84961

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Gage and Toulson LJJ; 16 May 2007)

The parents initially had no explanation for the child's bone fractures, one of which was rare. At the fact-finding hearing the mother suggested that the child might be suffering from a rare bone condition and obtained leave for an expert in the condition to examine the child. The expert concluded that the proposed diagnosis was extremely unlikely, as there was no evidence of a family history, and no clinical signs of the condition. He recommended, however, that genetic testing be carried out; the test would take 6 to 8 weeks and cost £5,000. The judge considered that there was no forensic justification for the test and dismissed the application. The mother appealed arguing that in the interests of obtaining best evidence, the test should be allowed.

It was very important to draw a clear boundary between a medical decision as to what was clinically required for the treatment of a child, and a forensic decision as to what was necessary to ensure the proper determination of an issue. A forensic decision was a case management decision for the judge. The expert had not been expressing a medical opinion on clinical grounds, but a forensic decision, and had been trespassing on judicial territory. The judge had made the right decision. There had to come a time at which the evidence was sufficiently full and thorough to enable the court to make a decision on the balance of probabilities. The benefit to be gained by subjecting the child to the test was not large enough to justify the considerable cost in money and time.

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