B (A Child)

B (A Child)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct to refuse permission for the parents to instruct an additional expert (Mr Gumbleton/Resolutions). The existing expert evidence, particularly the comprehensive report of Dr Bentovim, adequately addressed the relevant issues, including the parents' denial of responsibility and the implications for S's safety and welfare. The parents would not be disadvantaged as they could put the Resolutions approach to Dr Bentovim in cross-examination. Further expert involvement would cause disproportionate delay and was not necessary for a fair determination of S's welfare.

Parties
Subject Child: S (a child); Appellant Father: Father of S; Appellant Mother: Mother of S; Respondent Local Authority: Woking District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (child Protection) / Appeal From Refusal to Permit Instruction of Additional Expert in Welfare Stage
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Expert Evidence, Welfare of the Child, Threshold Criteria Under Children Act 1989
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Expert Evidence Welfare of the Child Threshold Criteria Under Children Act 1989

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S (a child)

Subject Child

Father of S

Appellant Father

Mother of S

Appellant Mother

Woking District Council

Respondent Local Authority

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (child Protection) / Appeal From Refusal to Permit Instruction of Additional Expert in Welfare Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing permission for the parents to instruct an additional expert (Resolutions/Mr Gumbleton) to assess their capacity to care for the child despite their denial of responsibility for injuries
  2. 2 Whether the evidence before the court was sufficient to determine the child's welfare without further expert assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct to refuse permission for the parents to instruct an additional expert (Mr Gumbleton/Resolutions). The existing expert evidence, particularly the comprehensive report of Dr Bentovim, adequately addressed the relevant issues, including the parents' denial of responsibility and the implications for S's safety and welfare. The parents would not be disadvantaged as they could put the Resolutions approach to Dr Bentovim in cross-examination. Further expert involvement would cause disproportionate delay and was not necessary for a fair determination of S's welfare.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Extension of time granted