![]() Genetic testing had not been undertaken nor testing for EDS type III or 4/connective tissue disorders, despite coagulation testing being taken. There were arguments that typical other markers of a shaking injury were absent. It was said that challenges had not been put in relation to the longevity of birth-related subdural bleeding/retinal haemorrhages nor the possibility of re-bleeding. Attention was drawn to other case law in which this mechanism had been accepted as a possibility. Arguments included insufficient exploration of mechanism and that an expert had dismissed the potential for the ‘bump down the steps in the buggy’ to have caused the injuries. Following such rehearing, if there were a change of outcome in relation to the causation of injuries or (if inflicted) perpetrator, this would also amount to a change of circumstances in relation to the parents’ application for leave to oppose the adoption of the elder siblings.īoth the mother and father had made arguments that the findings should be reopened, criticising the approach taken to the expert evidence. Mr Justice Williams granted the application by the parents for the findings of fact, in relation to C’s injuries, to be relitigated within the proceedings concerning the younger child D. Transcripts of the evidence were obtained to inform the Court’s decision. The final hearing was adjourned to allow for the application (now made by both parents) to be heard in full. This application and the adoption applications for the elder children were consolidated. However, the mother, in her position statement relating to D’s proceedings, argued that she should be given the opportunity to challenge the findings made in the context of D’s final hearing. The mother’s first application to re-open the fact-finding judgment was dismissed. In late 2019, the parents had another child D, she was placed in a foster to adopt placement. She did not conclude that either parent was covering up for the other.Īs a result of these findings, care and placement orders were made for all three children. ![]() She did not accept the parents’ explanation that the injuries were caused to C by bumping him down the stairs of their flat in a buggy or by a toy being thrown by another child. ![]() HHJ Blackhouse found the injuries were inflicted to C but could not determine which parent was the perpetrator. The parents did not accept any of the most serious findings sought. Additional findings were sought on additional issues, including failure to seek timely medical attention, inadequate feeding, neglect and substance misuse. At the fact find hearing findings were sought that the injuries were inflicted by one of the parents shaking him. ![]() Child C was found to have suffered injuries causing them to have subdural and retinal haemorrhages. HHJ Blackhouse heard a fact-finding hearing in respect of 3 children, A, B and C. Mr Justice Williams heard an application to re-open a fact finding judgment made by HHJ Blackhouse in December 2018. ![]() This article considers this decision and practical issues that arise. Further there was fresh evidence in the form of cognitive assessment and a further intermediary report that (had it been available at the fact find hearing) would likely have led to both parents having an intermediary. There had been significant non-compliance with Ground Rules, such that there had not been a fair hearing. In this interesting recent authority Mr Justice Williams granted an application to reopen findings of fact in a case centring on allegations of serious non accidental injury. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |