C (A child), Re

C (A child), Re

There was no new evidence or expert opinion sufficient to undermine the original fact finding; Professor Nussey's report did not support the parents' theory of vitamin D deficiency causing the injuries, and all relevant medical issues were thoroughly considered at the original hearing. Further adjournment or expert...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Subject: C (A child); Appellant: Parents of C; First Respondent: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council; Second Respondent: Children's Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (family/care Proceedings) / Court of Appeal, Permission to Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Re Opening Fact Finding, Expert Medical Evidence, Non Accidental Injury, Vitamin D Deficiency, Rickets, Adoption Placement
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Re Opening Fact Finding Expert Medical Evidence Non Accidental Injury Vitamin D Deficiency Rickets +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

C (A child)

Subject

Parents of C

Appellant

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

First Respondent

Children's Guardian

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (family/care Proceedings) / Court of Appeal, Permission to Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new medical evidence (vitamin D deficiency/rickets) justifies re-opening fact finding in care proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to re-open fact finding was correct
  3. 3 Whether further expert evidence should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

There was no new evidence or expert opinion sufficient to undermine the original fact finding; Professor Nussey's report did not support the parents' theory of vitamin D deficiency causing the injuries, and all relevant medical issues were thoroughly considered at the original hearing. Further adjournment or expert evidence would not alter the outcome and would be contrary to the child's welfare.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused
  • Application for further adjournment to seek additional expert evidence is refused