RMM v HW & Ors

RMM v HW & Ors

The judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the October event was non-accidental and perpetrated by the father, based on suspicious circumstances, lack of medical explanation, and the father's unsatisfactory account. For the December injuries, the appellate court found no evidence to cast doubt on the mother's care and, given the father's responsibility for the October event, identified the father as perpetrator of the December injuries, setting aside the pool finding.

Parties
Appellant: RMM; First Respondent and Cross Appellant: HW; Second Respondents: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council; Third Respondent: ESM (by his Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Father's appeal dismissed; mother's cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Non Accidental Injury, Fact Finding, Pool of Perpetrators, Balance of Probabilities
Family Law Child Protection Non Accidental Injury Fact Finding Pool of Perpetrators Balance of Probabilities

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RMM

Appellant

HW

First Respondent and Cross Appellant

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Second Respondents

ESM (by his Children’s Guardian)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Appeal From Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the October event (ALTE and nose-bleed) was caused non-accidentally and by whom
  2. 2 Whether the December injuries were non-accidental and the identification of the perpetrator

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the October event was non-accidental and perpetrated by the father, based on suspicious circumstances, lack of medical explanation, and the father's unsatisfactory account. For the December injuries, the appellate court found no evidence to cast doubt on the mother's care and, given the father's responsibility for the October event, identified the father as perpetrator of the December injuries, setting aside the pool finding.

Court Disposition

Father's appeal dismissed; mother's cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Set aside finding consigning both parents to pool of possible perpetrators for December injuries.
  • Substitute finding that father was perpetrator of December injuries.