Gateshead Council v M [2015] EW Misc B33 (CC) (04 August 2015)

Gateshead Council v M [2015] EW Misc B33 (CC) (04 August 2015)

DM (the maternal grandmother) was responsible for administering Codeine to LLM. MM and STM failed to protect LLM by not reporting the administration in a timely manner. The evidence did not support MM or STM as perpetrators of administration, but both failed in their duty to protect. The administration was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EW Misc B33 (CC)
Parties
Applicant: Local Authority; Respondent/mother: MM; Respondent/father (stm): CM; Respondent/maternal Grandmother: DM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Findings of fact made; DM found to have administered Codeine; MM and STM found to have failed to protect LLM; STM removed from pool of perpetrators for administration.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Child Welfare, Standard of Proof, Identification of Perpetrator, Administration of Medication to Child
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Child Welfare Standard of Proof Identification of Perpetrator Administration of Medication to Child

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Applicant

MM

Respondent/mother

CM

Respondent/father (stm)

DM

Respondent/maternal Grandmother

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who administered Codeine to LLM?
  2. 2 Did the respondents fail to protect LLM from harm or risk thereof?
  3. 3 Did the respondents fail to report the Codeine administration in a timely manner?

Ratio Decidendi

DM (the maternal grandmother) was responsible for administering Codeine to LLM. MM and STM failed to protect LLM by not reporting the administration in a timely manner. The evidence did not support MM or STM as perpetrators of administration, but both failed in their duty to protect. The administration was not malicious but was extremely dangerous and placed LLM at significant risk of harm.

Court Disposition

Findings of fact made; DM found to have administered Codeine; MM and STM found to have failed to protect LLM; STM removed from pool of perpetrators for administration.

Orders

  • Findings as sought by the local authority in respect of administration and failure to protect are made.
  • No finding of malicious intent against DM.