Originally published in TEDR Volume 12 Issue 2 (publication date not recorded).
[2007] EWHC 136 (Fam), [2007] 2 FLR 597 TEDR Volume 12 Issue 2
The court was asked to determine certain facts and make recommendations, and in particular to make some findings in respect of an expert (F) in paediatric neuro-radiology, arising out of concluded care proceedings. In the course of his judgment, Mr. Justice Ryder also related the findings and recommendations made earlier in the case by the Court of Appeal and added further recommendations of his own. For the purposes of this summary no distinction will be made between which court made which recommendations.
In care proceedings brought by the local authority as applicant, the judge relied solely on the evidence of F in finding that one or other of the parents had been responsible for a non-accidental brain injury sustained by their infant son as a result of being shaken.
The parents appealed against that decision and asserted that the report of a second expert, which clearly and fundamentally disagreed with the conclusions drawn by F, supported the parents’ case that their infant child’s condition had an innocent origin. That second opinion had not been adduced before the judge.
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.