T and J (Children)

T and J (Children)

The appeal is dismissed because the criminal verdicts and new odontology evidence do not, by themselves, justify overturning the family court’s findings. The judge was not obliged to draw adverse inferences from KF’s refusal to give evidence and his assessment of the evidence was careful and within his discretion. The application to admit fresh odontology evidence is refused as it was not sufficiently new or likely to have affected the outcome. Any application to reopen the findings should be made to the trial judge with proper notice and evidence.

Parties
Appellant: A Mother; First Respondent: A Local Authority; Second Respondent: AH; Third Respondent: AM; Fourth and Fifth Respondents: T and J (by their children’s guardian); Sixth Respondent: KF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Drawing Adverse Inferences, Reopening Findings, Expert Evidence (odontology)
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Drawing Adverse Inferences Reopening Findings Expert Evidence (odontology)

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Mother

Appellant

A Local Authority

First Respondent

AH

Second Respondent

AM

Third Respondent

T and J (by their children’s guardian)

Fourth and Fifth Respondents

KF

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether findings against the mother in care proceedings should be set aside in light of subsequent criminal acquittal and new evidence
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in not drawing adverse inferences from KF’s refusal to give oral evidence
  3. 3 Whether fresh expert evidence on odontology should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the criminal verdicts and new odontology evidence do not, by themselves, justify overturning the family court’s findings. The judge was not obliged to draw adverse inferences from KF’s refusal to give evidence and his assessment of the evidence was careful and within his discretion. The application to admit fresh odontology evidence is refused as it was not sufficiently new or likely to have affected the outcome. Any application to reopen the findings should be made to the trial judge with proper notice and evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed