A child had died. Care proceedings were begun for the elder child. It was not clear just who had been responsible for the death.
Held: There were two questions. First, who perpetrated the injuries recorded by the experts? The answer to that can only be, ‘either the mother or KR’. The court is unable to determine to the requisite standard which. Secondly, who failed to protect K from these injuries? There was no doubt that the mother failed to protect her child. KR is not involved in any way in the disposal proceedings which will follow. He is the more probable perpetrator in relation to most of these injuries. But the important factor that the judge must bring into the foundation for the disposal hearing is that he cannot disregard the risk that the mother presents as a primary carer for either Y or a future child. The judge when he comes to the disposal hearing will have to consider the attraction of rehabilitation against the question mark which attaches to the mother, at least during that period when she was in cohabitation with KR.
Judges:
Thorpe, Rix and Arden LJJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 902, [2002] 2 FLR 599
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing) HL 3-Apr-2003
The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible.
Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – In re O and N (Minors); In re B (Minors) (Care: Preliminary hearing) HL 3-Apr-2003
The appeals were from conflicting decisions in care applications where one or other or both parents were guilty of lack of care, but there was no evidence to say which was responsible.
Held: The threshold criteria had been met, and the court . .
Cited – In re A (a Child) (Care proceedings: Non-accidental injury) CA 1-Jul-2003
The 11 year old child had been subject to non-accidental injury. The perpetrator could not be identified form among those who had care of him. The Family Court had held the first part of a split trial. The judge had been unable to exclude the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.180418
