A (Fact-Finding - multiple bruising), Re

THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT EAST LONDON 11, Westferry Circus, LONDON, E14 4HD 18/03/2021 B e f o r e :

Ms Badejo and Ms Allison for the local authority Mr Ekaney QC and Mr Ashworth for the mother Ms Verity and Mr Schmitt for the father Ms Warner and Ms Bertoni for the child through her guardian Mr Momtaz QC and Ms Fisher for XY Ms Momoh for XX Hearing dates: 30 November � 14 December 2020, 7, 8, 12, 13 January 2021, 25 January 2021, 18 March 2021 ____________________

"What about the Court's approach, in the light of all that, to the issue of significant harm? In order to understand this concept and the range of harm that it's intended to encompass, it is right to begin with issues of policy. Basically it is the tradition of the United Kingdom, recognised in law, that children are best brought up within natural families. Lord Templeman, in Re: KD (a minor ward) ( termination of access) [1988] 1AC806, at page 812 said this:

c. The court may find only that something happened or that it did not happen. The law operates a binary system and there is no room for a finding that something 'might have' happened: Re B [2008] UKHL 35 .

d. The court must not reverse the burden of proof. If a respondent fails to prove an affirmative case they have set up by way of a defence, that does not of itself establish the applicant's case. In such circumstances the question for the court is not 'has the alternative explanation been proved?', but 'in the light of the possible alternative explanation, can the court be satisfied that the applicant has proved its case on the balance of probabilities?': Re X (Children) (no 3) [2015] EWHC 3651 .