A (A Child) (Fact-Finding: Head Injury), Re
[2024] EWCA Civ 327
Re B (A child) (Fact-finding)
31 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 905
Court of Appeal
A judge said a mom hurt her baby, but another judge said the first judge didn't look at ALL the evidence properly. So, they're having a new trial with a different judge to decide what really happened.
Key Facts
- •Mother appeals a finding that she inflicted serious physical injuries on her baby, B.
- •B sustained an oblique fracture of the left femur, a left proximal tibial metaphysis fracture, seven healing rib fractures, and other rib changes.
- •The parents were the only possible perpetrators.
- •The judge found the mother inflicted the injuries due to a loss of control under stress, not malice.
- •The judge found the father lied about a sexual incident with the mother and insufficiently supported her.
Legal Principles
Appellate courts should not interfere with findings of fact by trial judges unless compelled to do so.
Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5; Volpi and another v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
Evidence in care proceedings cannot be evaluated in separate compartments; a judge must consider the totality of the evidence.
Re T (Children) [2004] EWCA Civ 558
In assessing perpetrators, an analysis of factors pointing towards and away from each adult is required.
Re S (A Child: Adequacy of Reasoning) [2019] EWCA Civ 1845
The standard of proof in family cases is the balance of probabilities.
Implicit throughout the judgment
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; the case is remitted for rehearing by another circuit judge.
The judge's reasoning was insufficient and flawed; she failed to consider material factors, looked at evidence in compartments, and did not consider the totality of the evidence.