O (Children: Fact-Finding), Re

O (Children: Fact-Finding), Re

The trial judge’s findings that the local authority had not proved its case on the balance of probabilities, and that there had only been one incident, were not reasonably open to him. The judge failed to give cogent reasons for rejecting strong, agreed expert medical evidence on the timing of the injuries, and gave undue weight to parental evidence despite their history of deceit. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted for a fact-finding rehearing on causation of C’s injuries.

Parties
Appellant Local Authority: Norfolk County Council; Respondent: Mother; Respondent: Father; Respondent: Children (by their Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment in Family Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; findings set aside; case remitted for fact-finding rehearing
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings, Expert Evidence, Domestic Violence, Non Accidental Injury, Appellate Review
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings Expert Evidence Domestic Violence Non Accidental Injury Appellate Review

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

Parties

Norfolk County Council

Appellant Local Authority

Mother

Respondent

Father

Respondent

Children (by their Children’s Guardian)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment in Family Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting expert medical evidence on timing of injuries
  2. 2 Whether the judge gave undue weight to parental evidence despite history of deceit
  3. 3 Whether the findings of fact regarding causation of injuries to C were reasonably open to the judge

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge’s findings that the local authority had not proved its case on the balance of probabilities, and that there had only been one incident, were not reasonably open to him. The judge failed to give cogent reasons for rejecting strong, agreed expert medical evidence on the timing of the injuries, and gave undue weight to parental evidence despite their history of deceit. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted for a fact-finding rehearing on causation of C’s injuries.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; findings set aside; case remitted for fact-finding rehearing

Orders

  • Set aside paragraphs 5 and 8 of the trial judge’s findings
  • Substitute findings that (1) the father assaulted and injured the mother on 25 November 2023, and (2) there was a second undisclosed event between hospital admissions during which DAI was caused to C