K and G (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding)

K and G (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding)

The recorder's judgment, though not structured according to the threshold document, provided sufficient reasoning and analysis to support her findings. She was unable to identify a perpetrator of the bite marks on a balance of probabilities, placing both parents in the pool of possible perpetrators. The ear injury was unexplained. The judgment was adequate for risk assessment and did not warrant appellate intervention.

Parties
Appellant: Local Authority; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Father; Third and Fourth Respondents: Children's Guardian (on behalf of G and K)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (family) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings, Threshold Criteria, Pool of Perpetrators, Failure to Protect, Expert Evidence
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings Threshold Criteria Pool of Perpetrators Failure to Protect Expert Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

Mother

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

Children's Guardian (on behalf of G and K)

Third and Fourth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (family) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recorder erred in failing to identify the perpetrator of inflicted injuries
  2. 2 Whether the recorder failed to properly analyse evidence regarding injuries and parental failure to protect
  3. 3 Whether the recorder failed to address findings sought in the threshold document

Ratio Decidendi

The recorder's judgment, though not structured according to the threshold document, provided sufficient reasoning and analysis to support her findings. She was unable to identify a perpetrator of the bite marks on a balance of probabilities, placing both parents in the pool of possible perpetrators. The ear injury was unexplained. The judgment was adequate for risk assessment and did not warrant appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No rehearing ordered
  • Recorder's findings upheld