NH v A County Council & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 472 (04 June 2009)

NH v A County Council & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 472 (04 June 2009)

The judge's exoneration of the mother and attribution of all injuries to the father was plainly wrong, particularly in light of the mother's admission to causing S's torn frenulum and the confused evidence regarding bruising to R. The only proper finding was that neither parent could be excluded as a possible perpetrator for the injuries to either child, with a specific finding that the mother caused S's torn frenulum. The case should continue before the same judge for the welfare stage.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 472
Parties
Appellant: NH; 1st Respondent: County Council; 2nd Respondent: NH; 3rd Respondent: RD & SD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings Under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 / Appeal From Fact Finding Limb of Split Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Non Accidental Injury, Standard of Proof, Identification of Perpetrator, Split Hearings, Section 31 Children Act 1989
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Non Accidental Injury Standard of Proof Identification of Perpetrator Split Hearings Section 31 Children Act 1989

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NH

Appellant

County Council

1st Respondent

NH

2nd Respondent

RD & SD

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings Under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 / Appeal From Fact Finding Limb of Split Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the father as sole perpetrator of injuries to the children
  2. 2 Whether the mother could be excluded as a possible perpetrator
  3. 3 Proper application of the standard of proof post-Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's exoneration of the mother and attribution of all injuries to the father was plainly wrong, particularly in light of the mother's admission to causing S's torn frenulum and the confused evidence regarding bruising to R. The only proper finding was that neither parent could be excluded as a possible perpetrator for the injuries to either child, with a specific finding that the mother caused S's torn frenulum. The case should continue before the same judge for the welfare stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the finding that the father was the sole perpetrator of the injuries to each child
  • Substitute a finding that neither parent can be excluded as possible perpetrator of the injuries to either child