Re AB (Child Abuse: Expert Witnesses) [1994] EWHC Fam 5 (01 July 1994)

Re AB (Child Abuse: Expert Witnesses) [1994] EWHC Fam 5 (01 July 1994)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities and on the basis of the medical and factual evidence, that AB's injuries were non-accidental and caused by physical abuse while in the care of his parents. The alternative hypothesis of brittle bone disease was rejected as unsupported by scientific evidence and not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1994] EWHC Fam 5
Parties
Subject Child: AB (a child, anonymised); Respondents: Parents of AB; Applicant: Local Authority; Party: Guardian ad litem
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 1994
Procedural Posture
Wardship / Child Protection / Post Fact Finding Judgment Following Contested Hearing
Outcome
Finding of fact: AB suffered non-accidental injuries while in the care of his parents; alternative explanation of brittle bone disease rejected.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Expert Evidence, Child Abuse, Role of Medical Experts, Judicial Assessment of Medical Controversy
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Expert Evidence Child Abuse Role of Medical Experts Judicial Assessment of Medical Controversy

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB (a child, anonymised)

Subject Child

Parents of AB

Respondents

Local Authority

Applicant

Guardian ad litem

Party

Procedural Posture

Wardship / Child Protection / Post Fact Finding Judgment Following Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether AB's injuries were non-accidental or due to brittle bone disease
  2. 2 The proper approach to expert medical evidence in child abuse cases
  3. 3 The duties of expert witnesses in children's cases

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities and on the basis of the medical and factual evidence, that AB's injuries were non-accidental and caused by physical abuse while in the care of his parents. The alternative hypothesis of brittle bone disease was rejected as unsupported by scientific evidence and not applicable to the facts. The court criticised Dr Paterson's evidence as lacking objectivity, failing to disclose controversy, and misleading by omission.

Court Disposition

Finding of fact: AB suffered non-accidental injuries while in the care of his parents; alternative explanation of brittle bone disease rejected.

Orders

  • No specific orders detailed in this judgment; matter adjourned for further hearing on welfare and final disposition.