Judge Ignores Scientific Evidence

The Guardian featured an interesting piece yesterday. A court overruled the medical experts in a injured baby case. The decision was out of the ordinary in that there was a departure from the usual manner where the judiciary balances the scientific evidence in the best interests of the child. It is highly unusual and particularly dangerous that the judge set aside scientific evidence and inserted his own view based on the demeanor of the parents. Child abusers have very manipulative personalities and may even be convincing psychopaths. On the stand, they can be convincing to anyone who is not astute to their personas. The Guardian stated "The case signals a growing recognition by senior judges that expert opinions are one part of a jigsaw and that it is for judges, not doctors, to decide issues of liability".

The newspaper went onto quote "

The council asked the judge to rule that one or other of the parents had caused his injuries by shaking the baby, who was removed and placed with foster carers. The judge said the council was "well aware that the impression of these parents from ... doctors, nurses, policemen, foster carers, those who have supervised contact and work colleagues, was of two loving and supporting parents who were deeply upset by the injuries to and illness of R".

My question is this, how can a judge ignore scientific evidence in favour of the parent's demeanour.

The baby was taken to hospital and found to be suffering from brain damage, bleeding on the surface of the brain and into the eyes, and a small fracture of the skull.

It is a brave judge who rules for the parents. We shall just have to see whether these incidents occur again and again and again. Ruling in the interests of the parents is a new trend within the courts. It is now doubt due to the skewed ideas propagated by Professor Tim David and his associations with Family Court judges. Parents are allowed to make any "rare excuse" to escape from being scrutinised by the courts. The important issue here is that common things are common. The above findings would lead to a suspicion of child abuse.

This case sets a dangerous precedent in the Family Courts where child abusers will be able to manipulate the system to their own advantage. All the abuser has to do is be pleasant and charming to the judge.

Our question is this, how many times does the child have to be abused and violated for the judges to believe the child as opposed to the parents?

Related Links

The judgment