G-P (A Child)

G-P (A Child)

The trial judge's findings were supported by compelling expert medical evidence and contemporaneous information about the child's clinical condition. The judge methodically weighed the evidence, differentiated between types of harm, and was entitled to exclude the parents as perpetrators of the physical injuries. The appeal arguments did not undermine the factual findings, and the judge's reasoning was beyond criticism.

Parties
Appellant Intervenor: Ms R; Respondent Local Authority: Stockton on Tees Borough Council; Respondent Mother: Mother; Respondent Father: Father; Respondent Child: G-P (A Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Factitious Illness Disorder, Child Abuse, Expert Evidence, Appeal, Care Arrangements
Family Law Child Protection Factitious Illness Disorder Child Abuse Expert Evidence Appeal Care Arrangements

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms R

Appellant Intervenor

Stockton on Tees Borough Council

Respondent Local Authority

Mother

Respondent Mother

Father

Respondent Father

G-P (A Child)

Respondent Child

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding Ms R responsible for physical injuries to Mary
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to sufficiently analyse the relevance of the parents' conduct and credibility to the perpetration of injuries
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to attach sufficient weight to social factors and the inherent improbability of dual abuse

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings were supported by compelling expert medical evidence and contemporaneous information about the child's clinical condition. The judge methodically weighed the evidence, differentiated between types of harm, and was entitled to exclude the parents as perpetrators of the physical injuries. The appeal arguments did not undermine the factual findings, and the judge's reasoning was beyond criticism.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
  • No order for costs save for a public funding assessment of the costs of the Appellant, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.