F and B (Fact-Finding: Gonorrhoea)

F and B (Fact-Finding: Gonorrhoea)

The judge erred by attaching excessive weight to the mere theoretical possibility of fomite transmission, contrary to the expert evidence that such transmission is rare and unproven, and failed to properly balance the totality of the evidence, including the significance of lies told by X and the expert opinion that sexual abuse was the likely cause. The judge also misapplied relevant case law, leading to an unsafe conclusion. The appeal is allowed and the case remitted for rehearing.

Parties
Appellant: Local Authority; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Father; Third and Fourth Respondents: Children (F and B) via Children's Guardian; Intervenor: X (Mother's brother)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Judgment on Appeal From Fact Finding Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Sexual Abuse Allegations, Standard of Proof, Expert Evidence, Fact Finding Hearings
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Sexual Abuse Allegations Standard of Proof Expert Evidence Fact Finding Hearings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

Mother

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

Children (F and B) via Children's Guardian

Third and Fourth Respondents

X (Mother's brother)

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Judgment on Appeal From Fact Finding Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in law by attaching excessive weight to the theoretical possibility of fomite transmission of gonorrhoea in a child, contrary to expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly analyse the totality of the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses and the likelihood of sexual abuse
  3. 3 Whether the judge misapplied or misunderstood relevant legal principles and case law regarding the burden of proof and evaluation of expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by attaching excessive weight to the mere theoretical possibility of fomite transmission, contrary to the expert evidence that such transmission is rare and unproven, and failed to properly balance the totality of the evidence, including the significance of lies told by X and the expert opinion that sexual abuse was the likely cause. The judge also misapplied relevant case law, leading to an unsafe conclusion. The appeal is allowed and the case remitted for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Orders

  • Fact-finding hearing to be reheard before another judge.
  • No findings as to sexual abuse to stand pending rehearing.