H (final hearing)
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE GARETH JONES
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Evidence Law
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved the custody of a child KGH after findings of non-accidental injuries while in the care of her mother and Mr H. The mother and Mr H were both found to be unreliable witnesses, complicating the case. Ultimately, the court decided to place KGH with her maternal grandparents and ordered no contact with Mr H, who was not KGH's biological father.
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR GARETH JONES:
I have before me an application for a Care Order with regard to the child KGH. She was born on 22 nd August 2013 and she is therefore some ten months old.
The parties and their legal representation are as follows.
Wrexham County Borough Council bring the application; they are represented by Miss Morris.
K’s mother is CJB. She is present today, as she has been throughout the hearing, and she is represented by Mr Dodd.
K’s maternal grandparents MB and DB are represented by Mr Champaneria. They have permission to apply for a Child Arrangements Order.
K herself is represented by her Guardian Mr Craig Taylor and by Miss Erwood, K’s counsel.
The other party who was present today and throughout these proceedings is Mr MEH. He is a litigant in person and has been assisted by his mother Mrs HH as a quasi-Mckenzie Friend, she having been present until Mr H gave his evidence, when she decided that she wished to leave the courtroom. She in fact left the precincts of the Court after giving evidence herself.
At the outset of these proceedings Mr H was believed, certainly by the Local Authority, to be K’s father and he was so registered on her birth certificate. During the course of these proceedings, it has become evident that her paternity was an issue and DNA testing was undertaken in March 2014. That testing confirmed that Mr H was not in fact K’s birth father and on 14 th May 2014 Mrs Recorder Morgan made a declaration of parentage under the Family Law Act 1986 as a prelude to a rectification of K’s birth certificate by the Registrar of Births and a change in K’s second name (or surname).
Mr H therefore ceased to be an automatic Respondent, but he became instead an Intervenor being permitted by the Court to defend serious threshold allegations of multiple inflicted injuries to K involving both fractures and soft tissue injuries. Mr H (who was at the outset of these proceedings legally represented) ceased to receive a public funding certificate, hence he has represented himself during this hearing. I make no observation about how precisely that state of affairs came about, but in an attempt to assist him in his disadvantaged position, I permitted his mother to be present during the course of this hearing. The absence of public funding for a litigant answering serious allegations with potentially long-lasting adverse consequences for him is obviously unsatisfactory.
The outcome of the paternity testing in relation to Mr H c