G (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1408 (31 August 2012)

G (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1408 (31 August 2012)

The judge's findings of fact were based on a careful assessment of the evidence, including credibility and consistency of accounts. The judge was entitled to find AP was the perpetrator of the head injuries, the mother failed to protect the child to a limited extent, and the wrist rash did not amount to significant harm. There was no error of law or approach, and no real prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1408
Parties
Appellant Local Authority: Bath and North East Somerset Council; First Respondent Mother: Mother of G (A Child); Second Respondent Father: Father of G (A Child); Third and Fourth Respondents: Maternal Grandparents of G (A Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil Division) Child Protection / Care Proceedings / Application for Permission to Appeal (fact Finding Judgment)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Non Accidental Injury, Failure to Protect, Significant Harm Threshold, Fact Finding Hearings
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Non Accidental Injury Failure to Protect Significant Harm Threshold Fact Finding Hearings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bath and North East Somerset Council

Appellant Local Authority

Mother of G (A Child)

First Respondent Mother

Father of G (A Child)

Second Respondent Father

Maternal Grandparents of G (A Child)

Third and Fourth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil Division) Child Protection / Care Proceedings / Application for Permission to Appeal (fact Finding Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in finding that AP was the sole perpetrator of the head injuries to the child
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in finding that the mother failed to protect the child
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in finding that the wrist rash did not constitute significant harm under the Children Act 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's findings of fact were based on a careful assessment of the evidence, including credibility and consistency of accounts. The judge was entitled to find AP was the perpetrator of the head injuries, the mother failed to protect the child to a limited extent, and the wrist rash did not amount to significant harm. There was no error of law or approach, and no real prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused for all applicants.
  • No order as to costs specified.