RMM v HW & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1467 (17 December 2010)

RMM v HW & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1467 (17 December 2010)

The judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the October event was non-accidental and perpetrated by the father, based on the combination of suspicious medical circumstances and the father's unsatisfactory evidence. However, the judge erred in consigning the mother to a pool of possible perpetrators for the December injuries, as there was no evidence casting doubt on her care, and the evidence pointed to the father as the perpetrator.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1467
Parties
Appellant (father): RMM; First Respondent and Cross Appellant (mother): HW; Second Respondent (local Authority): Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council; Third Respondent (child): ESM (by his Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Father's appeal dismissed; mother's cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Fact Finding in Care Proceedings, Burden of Proof, Identification of Perpetrator, Adverse Inference
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Fact Finding in Care Proceedings Burden of Proof Identification of Perpetrator Adverse Inference

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

Parties

RMM

Appellant (father)

HW

First Respondent and Cross Appellant (mother)

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Second Respondent (local Authority)

ESM (by his Children's Guardian)

Third Respondent (child)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was correct to find that the October 2009 ALTE and nose-bleed were caused non-accidentally by the father
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct to consign both parents to a pool of possible perpetrators for the December 2009 injuries

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the October event was non-accidental and perpetrated by the father, based on the combination of suspicious medical circumstances and the father's unsatisfactory evidence. However, the judge erred in consigning the mother to a pool of possible perpetrators for the December injuries, as there was no evidence casting doubt on her care, and the evidence pointed to the father as the perpetrator.

Court Disposition

Father's appeal dismissed; mother's cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Set aside the finding that both parents should be consigned to a pool of possible perpetrators for the December injuries.
  • Substitute a finding that the father was the perpetrator of the December injuries.