G (Finding of Fact Hearing: Resuscitative Shake) [2022] EWFC B6 (21 January 2022)

G (Finding of Fact Hearing: Resuscitative Shake) [2022] EWFC B6 (21 January 2022)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that GH's injuries were caused by non-accidental trauma, specifically violent shaking, most likely by the father during a panicked attempt to revive the child. The expert medical evidence was clear that the constellation of injuries could not be explained by birth trauma, accident, or medical condition. The father's late disclosure of a resuscitative shake was consistent with the mechanism of injury. The threshold for significant harm under s.31 Children Act 1989 was met.

Citation
[2022] EWFC B6
Parties
Applicant: Local Authority; First Respondent: BM (Mother); Second Respondent: HG (Father)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Hearing
Outcome
Findings of non-accidental injury made; threshold for significant harm met.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Shaken Baby Syndrome, Interim Care Orders, Expert Medical Evidence, Threshold Criteria
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Shaken Baby Syndrome Interim Care Orders Expert Medical Evidence Threshold Criteria

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Applicant

BM (Mother)

First Respondent

HG (Father)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Fact Finding Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether GH's injuries were caused by non-accidental trauma
  2. 2 Whether the injuries could be explained by natural causes or accident
  3. 3 Identification of possible perpetrator(s)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that GH's injuries were caused by non-accidental trauma, specifically violent shaking, most likely by the father during a panicked attempt to revive the child. The expert medical evidence was clear that the constellation of injuries could not be explained by birth trauma, accident, or medical condition. The father's late disclosure of a resuscitative shake was consistent with the mechanism of injury. The threshold for significant harm under s.31 Children Act 1989 was met.

Court Disposition

Findings of non-accidental injury made; threshold for significant harm met.

Orders

  • Interim care orders for both children to remain with maternal grandparents
  • Directions for final welfare hearing