M v Derbyshire County Council & Ors [2018] EWHC 3734 (Fam) (31 August 2018)

M v Derbyshire County Council & Ors [2018] EWHC 3734 (Fam) (31 August 2018)

The application to reopen findings fails at stage 1 because there are no solid grounds to believe the original findings require revisiting. The new medical evidence does not undermine the accuracy of the original findings, and expert reports from Dr Ayoub and Professor Holick are inadmissible due to procedural breaches and lack of relevant expertise. Dr Chapman's report is admitted but does not alter the original conclusions. The court refuses permission to reopen the findings of fact.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3734 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: M; 1st Respondent: Derbyshire County Council; 2nd Respondent: F; 3rd and 4th Respondents: X & Y (represented through their Children's Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Family Law Application to Reopen Findings of Fact / Judgment on Permission to Reopen Findings
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Reopening Findings of Fact, Expert Evidence, Care Orders, Adoption Orders, Non Accidental Injury, Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, Vitamin D Deficiency
Family Law Child Protection Reopening Findings of Fact Expert Evidence Care Orders Adoption Orders Non Accidental Injury Ehlers Danlos Syndrome +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

Derbyshire County Council

1st Respondent

F

2nd Respondent

X & Y (represented through their Children's Guardian)

3rd and 4th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Family Law Application to Reopen Findings of Fact / Judgment on Permission to Reopen Findings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the court permit reconsideration or review of findings of fact made in 2010 regarding inflicted injuries to Y?
  2. 2 Should expert evidence obtained without court permission be admitted?
  3. 3 Does new medical evidence (EDS, Vitamin D deficiency) constitute solid grounds to revisit findings?

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen findings fails at stage 1 because there are no solid grounds to believe the original findings require revisiting. The new medical evidence does not undermine the accuracy of the original findings, and expert reports from Dr Ayoub and Professor Holick are inadmissible due to procedural breaches and lack of relevant expertise. Dr Chapman's report is admitted but does not alter the original conclusions. The court refuses permission to reopen the findings of fact.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to reopen findings of fact is denied
  • Expert reports of Dr Ayoub and Professor Holick are not admitted