S (A Child : Finding of Fact) [2020] EWCA Civ 1382 (27 October 2020)

S (A Child : Finding of Fact) [2020] EWCA Civ 1382 (27 October 2020)

The judge's conclusion was unsustainable because he failed to give sufficient weight to the medical evidence indicating likely inflicted injury, did not adequately reconcile his credibility findings with evidence of untruthfulness, did not properly analyse the plausibility of the 'car door' explanation, and misapplied the standard of proof by suggesting that a 'real possibility' was sufficient to defeat the local authority's case. The errors required the fact-finding to be reheard.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 1382
Parties
Appellant Local Authority: Hertfordshire County Council; Respondent Mother: Mother of A; Respondent Father: Father of A; Respondent Intervener: Mr T; Respondent Child: A (by Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for rehearing.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings, Non Accidental Injury, Standard of Proof, Assessment of Medical Evidence
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings Non Accidental Injury Standard of Proof Assessment of Medical Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hertfordshire County Council

Appellant Local Authority

Mother of A

Respondent Mother

Father of A

Respondent Father

Mr T

Respondent Intervener

A (by Children's Guardian)

Respondent Child

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the medical and lay evidence regarding the cause of a child's head injury
  2. 2 Whether the judge misapplied the standard of proof in care proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to resolve conflicts in the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's conclusion was unsustainable because he failed to give sufficient weight to the medical evidence indicating likely inflicted injury, did not adequately reconcile his credibility findings with evidence of untruthfulness, did not properly analyse the plausibility of the 'car door' explanation, and misapplied the standard of proof by suggesting that a 'real possibility' was sufficient to defeat the local authority's case. The errors required the fact-finding to be reheard.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted for rehearing.

Orders

  • Matter to be reheard by Designated Family Judge or another judge with section 9 ticket.
  • Case management hearing scheduled for 2 November 2020 to determine scope of rehearing and further evidence required.