Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The LA has the burden of proving the facts it seeks and of proving that the Threshold Criteria are met. These issues fall to be resolved on the balance of probabilities. The law is clear and the Court follows the guidance given by the House of Lords in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 :
If the LA cannot establish the facts to the required standard, they are to be treated as not having taken place. The LA therefore bears the burden of establishing that the parents acted towards the children in the ways that are detailed in the said Scott Schedule. There is no burden on the parents to establish that they did not so act. They are also not required to provide any satisfactory or benign explanation as to why L and J have made statements about their conduct towards them ( Re M (Fact Finding Hearing: Burden of Proof) [2013] 2 FLR 874 )
g) Both Police Officers who attended at the school, DC K and DC B who conducted the ABE interview of L
Dr H said that such an event would be well remembered by the children. MR told the court that P discussed the incident with her siblings.
This assault was likely to have been a significant memory for L and J, not least because it marked the beginning of their separation from their parents' care until August 2013.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.