G (A Child)

G (A Child)

The judge’s findings on perpetration and failure to protect were based on careful consideration of evidence and credibility; there was no prospect of success in appealing these findings as the judge approached the task correctly and gave sufficient reasons.

Parties
Appellant: Bath and North East Somerset Council; First Respondent: Mother of A; Second Respondent: Father of A; Third and Fourth Respondents: Maternal Grandparents; Guardian: Children’s Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Failure to Protect, Significant Harm, Fact Finding, Children Act 1989 Section 31

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

Bath and North East Somerset Council

Appellant

Mother of A

First Respondent

Father of A

Second Respondent

Maternal Grandparents

Third and Fourth Respondents

Children’s Guardian

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Application for Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the injuries to the child were non-accidental and who perpetrated them
  2. 2 Whether the mother failed to protect the child from harm
  3. 3 Whether the injuries constituted significant harm under Children Act 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The judge’s findings on perpetration and failure to protect were based on careful consideration of evidence and credibility; there was no prospect of success in appealing these findings as the judge approached the task correctly and gave sufficient reasons.

Court Disposition

applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • permission to appeal refused for all parties