In [2024] EWFC 122 (B), the Family Court at Chester, presided over by Her Honour Judge Hesford, ruled that the injuries sustained by an infant, R, were non-accidental and caused by her father. The case focused on a rib fracture and multiple bruises found on R, with the father initially denying responsibility but later admitting to causing the injuries during involuntary tic episodes. The court found that the father's actions, exacerbated by stress and poor coping mechanisms, led to significant harm. The mother was exonerated of any wrongdoing, with the court concluding that she was unaware of the father's actions.
Case Overview:
Case Name: [2024] EWFC 122 (B)
Court: Family Court at Chester
Judgment Date: 31 May 2024
Judge: Her Honour Judge Hesford
Keywords: Non-Accidental Injury, Child Protection, Fact-Finding Hearing, Family Law, Rib Fracture, Bruising
Legal Issues:
Non-Accidental Injuries:
The court was tasked with determining whether the injuries sustained by R were non-accidental and, if so, identifying the perpetrator. The injuries included a rib fracture and multiple bruises, which were discovered when R was taken to the hospital.
Parental Responsibility and Failure to Protect:
The court considered whether the mother failed to protect R by allowing the father to handle her despite the risk posed by his tic episodes. The court ultimately found that the mother was not aware of the risk and had not failed to protect her child.
Court’s Analysis:
Father's Admission and Credibility: The father’s changing accounts and late admission of responsibility led the court to question his credibility. The court found that his actions were reckless, driven by stress and frustration, rather than a direct result of his tic disorder.
Expert Testimony: Medical experts were divided on whether the father’s tic episodes could have caused the injuries. The court concluded that the injuries were more likely caused by excessive pressure applied by the father during a moment of stress, rather than the tics alone.
Judgment Summary:
The Family Court concluded that the father was responsible for the non-accidental injuries sustained by R, dismissing his claim that they were caused by involuntary tic episodes. The mother was exonerated from any wrongdoing, and the court found that she had no knowledge of the risk posed by the father. The judgment highlights the court's careful consideration of medical evidence and the importance of credibility in fact-finding hearings.
Implications:
This judgment underscores the importance of thorough investigation and fact-finding in cases of suspected non-accidental injuries, as well as the court's role in assessing parental responsibility and protection in the context of family law.
References:
Children Act 1989
Re B [2008] UKHL 35
Re A (Children) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12
Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558
Komentar