Originally published in TEDR Volume 11 Issue 1 (publication date not recorded).
[2006] 1 FLR 543, [2005] EWCA Civ 1247 TEDR Volume 11 Issue 1
The appellant parents (W) appealed against an order made in care proceedings brought by the Oldham Met Borough Councul in relation to their son. After the conclusion of the first limb of a "split" hearing, the judge had held that the son had suffered a non-accidental brain injury as a result of a shaking episode, that the injury had been caused by one of K’s parents, and that the threshold criteria under the Children Act 1989 s.31 were satisfied.
The judge relied on the evidence of a single expert in paediatric neuro-radiology and had dismissed applications by W to instruct a second expert. The local authority did not initially object to a second opinion being sought by the parents but did oppose the application when it became clear that the provision of that second opinion would delay the hearing.
The report of a second expert (when it was obtained) had expressed a clear and fundamental disagreement with the first expert and supported the parents’ case that their son’s injuries were not the result of any deliberate infliction of harm. In the circumstances, the parties had
This full content of this article is available to TAE members.
Articles reflect the law and practice at the time of original publication, except where a dated update is shown. Subsequent developments may affect their relevance or accuracy. They are provided for general information and do not constitute legal or professional advice. Obtain appropriate advice on your particular circumstances. Full disclaimer.