The local authority had intervened on suspecting physical abuse. L was placed with the maternal grandmother who took L to Ireland before care proceedings were commenced. The Irish court found him to have been wrongfully removed, and orders were made for his return. The child was again hidden, but then found and returned to England. Expert witnesses failed to find anything to support the mother’s belief that the injuries arose from some underlying medical condition.
Held: The approach was: ‘Firstly, I must consider whether any of the fractures and bruises are non-accidental injuries. Secondly, if I find that one or more of the injuries is a non-accidental injury I must then go on to consider whether I am able to identify the perpetrator. Thirdly, if I am unable to identify the perpetrator then I must consider who falls within the pool of possible perpetrators.’ Applying that, the court concluded that the injuries were non-accidental. ‘sometimes good people do bad things. I have found that L has sustained several non-accidental injuries; seven fractures and two bruises. The parents accept that they alone cared for L during the first six weeks of his life. The sad but inevitable truth is that one, or perhaps both, of them is responsible for causing these injuries.’ Narrowing the time of the injury, the child had been in the mother’s sole care.
The court went on to criticise reporting by the Daily Telegraph, which had reported the mother’s version of events uncritically, and also the web-site forced-adoption which had in turn ‘sexed up’ the Telegraph article: ‘In my experience, parents involved in court proceedings cannot always be relied upon to be unbiased and dispassionate. More often, as Sir Nicholas Wall has said, they are partisan and tendentious. It is not only judges that need to recognise that but journalists too. As this case has shown, to rely uncritically upon what a parent says can lead to reporting that is unbalanced, inaccurate and just plain wrong.’
Bellamy J
[2011] EWHC B8 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – North Yorkshire County Council v SA and others CA 1-Jul-2003
The child was taken to hospital with injuries which the doctors concluded were non-accidental. The identity of the abuser was in doubt.
Held: The court set out to identify the procedures in cases involving suspected non-accidental injuries . .
Cited – In In Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) CA 19-May-2004
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P said that in abuse cases, evidence: ‘cannot be evaluated in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases has to have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an . .
Cited – In Re B (Threshold Criteria: Fabricated Illness) FD 2004
Bracewell J said that: ‘Although the medical evidence is of very great importance, it is not the only evidence in the case. Explanations given by carers and the credibility of those involved with the child concerned are of great significance. All . .
Cited – In re LU (A Child); In re LB (A Child) (Serious Injury: Standard of Proof); re U (A Child) (Department for Education and Skills intervening) CA 14-May-2004
In each case, the other parent appealed care orders where she had been found to have injured her children. In each case the sole evidence was the injury to the child’s health and expert medical evidence. The cases were referred following the . .
See Also – In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL 11-Jun-2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
Cited – In re S-B (Children) (Care proceedings: Standard of proof) SC 14-Dec-2009
A child was found to have bruising consistent with physical abuse. Either or both parents might have caused it, but the judge felt it likely that only one had, that he was unable to decide which, and that they were not so serious that he had to say . .
Cited – A Local Authority v K, D and L FD 8-Mar-2005
The court gave guidance on the approach to expert evidence in children’s cases. Charles J said ”in determining the facts, a court should have regard to the guidance given in R v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720 and R v Middleton [2000] TLR 203. As . .
Cited – NH v A County Council and Others; In re D (Children) (Care proceedings: Preliminary hearings) CA 4-Jun-2009
The father appealed against a finding that he had been the sole perpetrator of injuries to his children. There had been the first limb of a split hearing.
Held: The judge had made an unnecessary finding. It was clear that at least one of the . .
Cited – In Re M (Care Proceedings: Best Evidence) CA 2007
The court considered an application for an order for DNA sequencing to establish paternity in care proceedings. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Haigh FD 22-Aug-2011
The Council sought to have certain aspects of a care application put into the public domain which would normally have remained private. Application was also made (by the father and the child) for an order restricting the right of the mother to make . .
Cited – Re L (Psychologist – Duty To The Court) FD 20-Dec-2011
The court had made findings of non-accidental injury caused by the parents. A psychologist called in to assist the court was sympathetic to the parents invited the court to reconsider its findings of fact.
Held: The expert had gone beyond her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Media
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.439590