ZM v JM; Re M (children) (fact-finding hearing: burden of proof); In re M (a Child) (Non-accidental injury: Burden of proof): CA 19 Nov 2008

When a court considered which of two parents might be responsible for a non-accidental injury to their child, what the court cannot do is decide that one parent is the perpetrator but that the other parent cannot be excluded as the perpetrator. Counsel had not brought to the attention of the court when applying for leave, the court’s failure to provide a clear judgement.
Held: The Emery Reimbold case applied equally in children cases, and counsel should act accordingly.

Sir Mark Potter, President, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Wall
[2008] EWCA Civ 1261, [2008] All ER(D) 187, [2009] Fam Law 283, [2009] 1 FLR 1177
Bailii, Times
Children Act 1989
England and Wales
CitedEnglish v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
CitedIn re T (a Child) (Contact: Alienation: Permission to Appeal) CA 24-Oct-2002
After a judgment the parties sought to appeal.
Held: The judge had failed to make a finding on a critical issue in the case, namely whether or not the mother of the child concerned had ‘even if prompted only at a subconscious level, . .

Cited by:
CitedLancashire County Council v R (A Minor) and others FD 4-Dec-2008
The local authority sought a care order, alleging serious physical abuse of the child. The mother said that any injuries had been inflicted by the father. The father said that the cause was the mother.
Held: The injuries were not likely to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.278314