Call us Our customer care line is now open for extended hours : Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm, Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm

Court of Appeal rejects mother’s fact finding challenge

Family Law | 11 May 2015 1

The Court of Appeal has rejected a mother’s claim that she had not harmed her infant son.

Her son, identified as ‘Z’ in the judgment, was taken to hospital for a suspected stomach infection. It turned out that Z had the anti-psychotic drug olanzapine in his blood. This drug is commonly used to treat schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder, and has “some sedative effects and can alter consciousness”. Despite it being unavailable without a prescription, no close relatives of Z had one.

Once the drug had been discovered, all four of the mother’s children were taken away from her. During the subsequent care proceedings, a fact finding hearing was held to determine who was responsible. In the hearing, medical experts explained how to gauge the length of time such a drug had been in someone’s blood based on concentration levels. They said that, given the estimated time that the drug was introduced into Z, the mother was the most likely culprit. Therefore, the initial judge made a finding of fact to this effect.

The mother sought to challenge that ruling in the Court of Appeal. She claimed that the judge had “wrongly conducted a calculation for the time of the likely dose which purported to identify the mother as the sole perpetrator”.

However, Lord Justice Ryder disagreed. He said that the first judge had not made such a calculation, but a “proper inference drawn from the available factual evidence and the un-contradicted scientific opinion evidence”.

He ruled that the original ruling had been “unassailable” and promptly dismissed the mother’s appeal.

To read BK-S (Children) (Expert Evidence and Probability) v Hampshire County Council & Ors in full, click here.

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers based across our family law offices who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. Guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Get in touch

    Request Free Call Back

    We remain open for business during the COVID-19 outbreak. Submit your details below, and we’ll arrange a free, no-obligation call back at a time to suit you. To ensure we are the right fit, we need to make you aware that we cannot offer Legal aid.


    1. Laurence Barrett says:

      Fair judgement. From a legal view, the mother is fully responsible for her children’s health & safety. No mercy for such cases.

    Leave a Reply


    Newsletter Sign Up

    For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
    please sign up for instant access today.

      Privacy Policy