AD & AM (Fact-Finding Hearing) (Application for Re-Hearing) [2016] EWHC 326 (Fam) (24 February 2016)

AD & AM (Fact-Finding Hearing) (Application for Re-Hearing) [2016] EWHC 326 (Fam) (24 February 2016)

The court found that the new medical evidence, particularly the pathological analysis of the previously untested skull bone and updated expert opinions on bone fragility and injury causation, constitutes solid grounds for revisiting the original findings. The threshold for permitting a re-hearing at this stage is met, as there is a real reason to believe the earlier findings may require revision. The scope of the re-hearing will be determined after an experts' meeting.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 326 (Fam)
Parties
Mother: MB; Father: FB; Local Authority: London Borough of Newham; Children's Guardian: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings Under Part IV Children Act 1989 / Application for Re Hearing of Fact Finding Determination
Outcome
Application for re-hearing granted at stage 1; findings to be reconsidered.
Legal Topics
Re Hearing of Fact Finding, Non Accidental Injury, Children Act 1989, Medical Evidence Review
Family Law Child Protection Re Hearing of Fact Finding Non Accidental Injury Children Act 1989 Medical Evidence Review

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MB

Mother

FB

Father

London Borough of Newham

Local Authority

Children's Guardian

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings Under Part IV Children Act 1989 / Application for Re Hearing of Fact Finding Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new medical evidence justifies re-opening previous findings of non-accidental injury
  2. 2 Whether the original fact-finding should be revisited in light of advances in medical knowledge and newly available evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the new medical evidence, particularly the pathological analysis of the previously untested skull bone and updated expert opinions on bone fragility and injury causation, constitutes solid grounds for revisiting the original findings. The threshold for permitting a re-hearing at this stage is met, as there is a real reason to believe the earlier findings may require revision. The scope of the re-hearing will be determined after an experts' meeting.

Court Disposition

Application for re-hearing granted at stage 1; findings to be reconsidered.

Orders

  • An experts' meeting to be convened urgently to inform the scope of the re-hearing.
  • The scope of the re-hearing to be determined following the experts' meeting.