Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
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
Authors

CARE: Re W (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] EWCA Civ 102

Sep 29, 2018, 16:30 PM
Slug : re-w-care-threshold-criteria-2007-ewca-civ-102
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 20, 2007, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85277

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Dyson and Wall LJJ; 20 February 2007)

Expert evidence at first identified clear evidence of anal abuse of the young child; national experts later concluded that there was no clear evidence of abuse. In a rehearing of the care application ordered by the Court of Appeal the local authority sought to establish significant harm, relying upon anal abuse by the father, an offender under Sch 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (a Sch 1 offender), on incidents of smacking, and on the mother's failure to protect the child, and to establish likelihood of future significant harm relying on risk of exposure to further abuse and the mother's inability to care for the child. The mother had terminated the relationship with the father and was now in a relationship with a man about whom the authority had expressed no concern. The mother had attended all the contact sessions, travelling some distance to do so; she had successfully completed an intensive parenting programme, obtained counselling and maintained contact with the community psychiatric team. The judge was not satisfied that sexual abuse had been established, but he did find that the father had smacked the child, constituting significant harm, that the mother had failed to protect the child, that there was a risk of future abuse, sexual and physical, and, relying heavily upon a report from a psychologist, that the mother was unable to care adequately for the child.

Ordering a further re-trial, the court noted that when a court found on the balance of probabilities that abuse had not taken place, it was difficult to see, as a matter of logic, how the other parent could then be held to have failed to protect the child against such abuse. None of the findings made by the judge warranted the conclusion that the child had suffered significant harm as a result of the mother's failure to protect her from sexual abuse, given that the judge had already found that the child had not been sexually abused. The mother's relationship with a Sch 1 offender might have suggested a likelihood of future significant harm, but did not do so without evidence that the mother would be likely to repeat the mistake. Although striking a child of 8 months with any blow, let alone a forceful one, was unacceptable parental behaviour, in the overall context the smacking incident was not sufficient to satisfy the threshold criteria; there was no evidence that it caused the child significant harm. In any event, physical abuse by the father could not properly have led to a care order, as the mother had terminated the relationship with the father, who had no contact with the child. There was force in the mother's criticisms of the psychologist's report; the judge had placed undue reliance on the expert's evidence and had not weighed properly the many positive factors in the mother's case. It was particularly regrettable and surprising that the expert had not been prepared to assist the judge by commenting on what others had observed; this was a sufficient derogation from the basic duty owed by an expert witness to cast doubt on the objectivity and soundness of the expert's evidence.

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