M (A Child), Re

M (A Child), Re

The judge erred by concluding that the injuries must have been non-accidental in the absence of a parental explanation, thereby reversing the burden of proof. The finding of failure to protect was inadequately reasoned and unsupported by evidence. The appeal is allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Mother; Appellant: Father; Respondent: Local Authority; Respondent: Child (M) by Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Fact Finding Hearing in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Burden of Proof, Section 31 Children Act 1989, Fact Finding Hearings
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Burden of Proof Section 31 Children Act 1989 Fact Finding Hearings

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Appellant

Father

Appellant

Local Authority

Respondent

Child (M) by Children's Guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Fact Finding Hearing in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in finding non-accidental injury to the child
  2. 2 Whether the judge misapplied the burden of proof
  3. 3 Whether the finding of failure to protect was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by concluding that the injuries must have been non-accidental in the absence of a parental explanation, thereby reversing the burden of proof. The finding of failure to protect was inadequately reasoned and unsupported by evidence. The appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed. The findings of non-accidental injury and failure to protect are set aside.