W, Re ( Appeal: Fact-Finding) [2024] EWCA Civ 1590 (20 December 2024)

W, Re ( Appeal: Fact-Finding) [2024] EWCA Civ 1590 (20 December 2024)

The Court of Appeal held that, although the trial judge's reliance on photographic evidence of grazes not tested in cross-examination was procedurally unfair to the mother, this did not undermine the overall findings. The judge's conclusions were amply supported by other evidence, including the mother's inconsistent accounts and failure to act in the child's best interests. The findings that the mother inflicted non-accidental injuries and that the father was aware of her culpability were open to the judge on the evidence. The appeals were dismissed.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 1590
Parties
First Appellant (mother): CW; Second Appellant (father): DW; First Respondent (local Authority): Royal Borough of Greenwich; Second & Third Respondents (children): HW and JW (by their Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Fact Finding) / Appeal From Central Family Court Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Fact Finding Hearing, Non Accidental Injury, Children Act 1989, Appeal Procedure, Credibility Assessment
Family Law Child Protection Fact Finding Hearing Non Accidental Injury Children Act 1989 Appeal Procedure Credibility Assessment

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CW

First Appellant (mother)

DW

Second Appellant (father)

Royal Borough of Greenwich

First Respondent (local Authority)

HW and JW (by their Children's Guardian)

Second & Third Respondents (children)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Fact Finding) / Appeal From Central Family Court Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the mother inflicted non-accidental injuries on J
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the father knew of the mother's culpability
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's reliance on photographic evidence was procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, although the trial judge's reliance on photographic evidence of grazes not tested in cross-examination was procedurally unfair to the mother, this did not undermine the overall findings. The judge's conclusions were amply supported by other evidence, including the mother's inconsistent accounts and failure to act in the child's best interests. The findings that the mother inflicted non-accidental injuries and that the father was aware of her culpability were open to the judge on the evidence. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals of both parents dismissed
  • Fact-finding judgment of HHJ Marin upheld