In the case [2024] EWFC 122 (B), the Family Court at Chester ruled on the non-accidental injuries sustained by a child, "R". The court found that the father, under stress and suffering from motor tics, inflicted a rib fracture and multiple bruises on the child through excessive force. The court rejected the father's defense that the injuries were solely caused by involuntary tics and noted his history of dishonesty throughout the proceedings. The mother was exonerated from any wrongdoing, with the court finding that she was unaware of the injuries or any risk posed by the father.
Case Overview:
Case Name: A Council v. Mother & Father
Court: Family Court at Chester
Neutral Citation: [2024] EWFC 122 (B)
Judgment Date: 31 May 2024
Judge: Her Honour Judge Hesford
Legal Issues:
Non-Accidental Injury: Whether the child, "R," sustained non-accidental injuries, including a rib fracture and multiple bruises, and the identification of the perpetrator.
Credibility of Parental Testimony: The court assessed the father's credibility, given his inconsistent statements and late admission of causing the injuries.
Failure to Protect: Consideration of whether the mother failed to protect the child from harm, which was ultimately dismissed.
Court's Analysis:
The court analyzed the expert medical evidence and the father's testimony, finding that the injuries were not solely caused by motor tics but by excessive force applied during a moment of stress. The court emphasized the importance of credibility, noting the father's repeated lies throughout the proceedings, which undermined his defence.
Judgment Summary:
Findings Against Father: The court ruled that the father caused the injuries through reckless handling and failed to seek medical attention or inform the mother.
Mother Exonerated: The mother was cleared of any responsibility for the injuries or failing to protect the child.
Non-Accidental Injuries: The court confirmed that the injuries were non-accidental and resulted from excessive force, not merely the father's tics.
This ruling highlights the court's careful consideration of both medical evidence and parental testimony in cases of alleged child abuse.
Comments