My husband was arrested 6 years ago for GBH on his ex’s baby. he suddenly started screaming whilst in his care and was rushed to hospital. He had suffered a ruptured stomach and had emergency Surgery. My husband was arrested and it went to court. A surgeon and doctor confirmed the child most likely had a medical condition which weakened the stomach and caused the rupture (he had been very poorly days before this) therefore my husband was found not guilty by all 12 jurors and SS confirmed there would be no repercussions as this wasn’t his child.
Fast forward 6 years, we have just had a baby and I stupidly called the police on my husband as he was acting aggressive and threatening (due to an ongoing medical condition. This has never happened in 4 years we’ve been together, ever). However this has now sparked SS to become involved. They are due to put my son on a child protection order as I’ve said I want my son to have a relationship with his dad as I know he never did that and wouldn’t have had a child with him if I believed it had. Theyve said he is not to see his dad unless it’s supervised by my dad and no overnight stays. They have advised that there is a difference between ‘criminal court’ and ‘family court’ and that although he was found not guilty in criminal court, family court ruled him a risk 6 years ago and this still stands as he’s now had his own baby. They’ve said unless he admits what he did, he may never see our son unsupervised again (basically blackmailed, why would he admit to something he did not do)
I’m angry as I was never made aware this would happen and this has only been brought up because I phoned the police. SS have said they made a mistake and I should’ve been made aware as soon as I was pregnant .
We’re waiting for the CPO to be put in place and see what happens but have been told it could take 9 months to get an answer on whether he can ever see him unsupervised again, however not very likely.
We’re both going on all counselling and courses we can do to strengthen our case but it’s not guaranteed.
What is the likelihood of this happening? He is the best dad I could wish for and never ever had any criminal background and no one has a bad word to say about him
CPO in place for fathers not guilty past,
-
Mumofone2020
Re: CPO in place for fathers not guilty past,
Mumofone2020 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:41 pm My husband was arrested 6 years ago for GBH on his ex’s baby. he suddenly started screaming whilst in his care and was rushed to hospital. He had suffered a ruptured stomach and had emergency Surgery. My husband was arrested and it went to court. A surgeon and doctor confirmed the child most likely had a medical condition which weakened the stomach and caused the rupture (he had been very poorly days before this) therefore my husband was found not guilty by all 12 jurors and SS confirmed there would be no repercussions as this wasn’t his child.
Fast forward 6 years, we have just had a baby and I stupidly called the police on my husband as he was acting aggressive and threatening (due to an ongoing medical condition. This has never happened in 4 years we’ve been together, ever). However this has now sparked SS to become involved. They are due to put my son on a child protection order as I’ve said I want my son to have a relationship with his dad as I know he never did that and wouldn’t have had a child with him if I believed it had. Theyve said he is not to see his dad unless it’s supervised by my dad and no overnight stays. They have advised that there is a difference between ‘criminal court’ and ‘family court’ and that although he was found not guilty in criminal court, family court ruled him a risk 6 years ago and this still stands as he’s now had his own baby. They’ve said unless he admits what he did, he may never see our son unsupervised again (basically blackmailed, why would he admit to something he did not do)
I’m angry as I was never made aware this would happen and this has only been brought up because I phoned the police. SS have said they made a mistake and I should’ve been made aware as soon as I was pregnant .
We’re waiting for the CPO to be put in place and see what happens but have been told it could take 9 months to get an answer on whether he can ever see him unsupervised again, however not very likely.
We’re both going on all counselling and courses we can do to strengthen our case but it’s not guaranteed.
What is the likelihood of this happening? He is the best dad I could wish for and never ever had any criminal background and no one has a bad word to say about him
-
Suzie, FRG Adviser
- Posts: 4996
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:57 pm
Re: CPO in place for fathers not guilty past,
Dear Mumofone2020
Welcome to the parents’ discussion forum and thank you for posting.
My name is Suzie, online adviser at Family Rights Group. I see from your post that you are upset about the current involvement of children’s services with your family.
Children’s services have become involved because your husband was charged but not convicted of an offence relating to grievous bodily harm (GBH) against a baby in a previous relationship. Your husband was found not guilty in the criminal court. At the time children’s services would have no further interaction with your husband since, he and the child’s mother were not continuing in a relationship. It is very likely that there were care proceedings brought by the local authority regarding the baby and the harm he suffered at the time. Although, your husband was found not guilty in the criminal court,, it is possible that the family court made a finding against him in respect of the injury the baby suffered.
It is correct that the test in criminal and civil cases are different. In a criminal case it has to be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the offence in question was committed by the person charged. In your husband’s case he was found not guilty perhaps because of the medical evidence. However, the civil test is based on the balance of probability which means something is more likely to have happened than not. In your husband’s case it may be that the court found as a matter of fact, that he contributed to the injury despite the possible underlying condition.
As the police was called to your home in what was, I suppose, a domestic abuse situation, they made a referral to children’s services because a child lives in the home. Domestic abuse is always taken very seriously because of the impact it has on children’s emotional well-being. Please read information here
You can also read our advice sheet An introductory guide to Children’s Services
Children’s services having received a referral will now carry out its enquiries based on the history as well as the recent events that led to the police being called. It is not unusual for a decision that contact should be supervised whilst investigations continue. As you say that your son will be placed on a child protection plan, I assume that the social worker has finished the assessment and the recommendation is that there should be an initial child protection conference to decide if your son will be placed on a plan.
Our advice sheet relating to Child protection procedures will give you more information.
The information in this link may be helpful for the initial child protection conference if this is to be done virtually.
I understand that you are angry about the situation you now find yourself because of the police referral. When children’s services is aware of someone’s background and that the person is having a child the partner can be informed of the concerns about the person. Was children’s aware from the beginning of your pregnancy. It is unfortunate that you did not know the full impact of your husband’s history should you have a child with him.
You have stated that your husband had care of a baby who was then found to have a ruptured stomach. This will be of concern to children’s services in respect of your baby. They will also be concerned about your ability to protect your baby. The family court decision will be an important feature of your case as it appears findings were made against your husband. Does he accept anything at all of what was said about him or his behaviour in the family court. I can see he does not want to admit to something he did not do but I think the judge would have looked at all the evidence and what all persons who had care of he baby during a period of time may or may not have done, whilst taking into account of the medical evidence.
Children’s services can carry out a risk assessment of your husband to assess the level of risk he may pose to your son. They are likely to suggest that he addresses his aggressive behaviour towards you. There may be a worry that it could be directed at the baby although you say this is unlikely as he is such a good father. However, because of what happened when a baby was in his care this will be an important issue for them in respect of safeguarding your son.
My advice is that you and your husband work with children’s services to show that you recognise their concerns and are willing to do what is needed to be able to safely care for your baby together. It is good they you are both being proactive and engaging in counselling.
Should you wish to speak to an adviser, please telephone our confidential advice line on 0808 801 0366. /The advice line is open from 9.30m to 3pm Monday to Friday (except Bank Holidays).
I hope this is helpful.
Best wishes
Suzie
Welcome to the parents’ discussion forum and thank you for posting.
My name is Suzie, online adviser at Family Rights Group. I see from your post that you are upset about the current involvement of children’s services with your family.
Children’s services have become involved because your husband was charged but not convicted of an offence relating to grievous bodily harm (GBH) against a baby in a previous relationship. Your husband was found not guilty in the criminal court. At the time children’s services would have no further interaction with your husband since, he and the child’s mother were not continuing in a relationship. It is very likely that there were care proceedings brought by the local authority regarding the baby and the harm he suffered at the time. Although, your husband was found not guilty in the criminal court,, it is possible that the family court made a finding against him in respect of the injury the baby suffered.
It is correct that the test in criminal and civil cases are different. In a criminal case it has to be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the offence in question was committed by the person charged. In your husband’s case he was found not guilty perhaps because of the medical evidence. However, the civil test is based on the balance of probability which means something is more likely to have happened than not. In your husband’s case it may be that the court found as a matter of fact, that he contributed to the injury despite the possible underlying condition.
As the police was called to your home in what was, I suppose, a domestic abuse situation, they made a referral to children’s services because a child lives in the home. Domestic abuse is always taken very seriously because of the impact it has on children’s emotional well-being. Please read information here
You can also read our advice sheet An introductory guide to Children’s Services
Children’s services having received a referral will now carry out its enquiries based on the history as well as the recent events that led to the police being called. It is not unusual for a decision that contact should be supervised whilst investigations continue. As you say that your son will be placed on a child protection plan, I assume that the social worker has finished the assessment and the recommendation is that there should be an initial child protection conference to decide if your son will be placed on a plan.
Our advice sheet relating to Child protection procedures will give you more information.
The information in this link may be helpful for the initial child protection conference if this is to be done virtually.
I understand that you are angry about the situation you now find yourself because of the police referral. When children’s services is aware of someone’s background and that the person is having a child the partner can be informed of the concerns about the person. Was children’s aware from the beginning of your pregnancy. It is unfortunate that you did not know the full impact of your husband’s history should you have a child with him.
You have stated that your husband had care of a baby who was then found to have a ruptured stomach. This will be of concern to children’s services in respect of your baby. They will also be concerned about your ability to protect your baby. The family court decision will be an important feature of your case as it appears findings were made against your husband. Does he accept anything at all of what was said about him or his behaviour in the family court. I can see he does not want to admit to something he did not do but I think the judge would have looked at all the evidence and what all persons who had care of he baby during a period of time may or may not have done, whilst taking into account of the medical evidence.
Children’s services can carry out a risk assessment of your husband to assess the level of risk he may pose to your son. They are likely to suggest that he addresses his aggressive behaviour towards you. There may be a worry that it could be directed at the baby although you say this is unlikely as he is such a good father. However, because of what happened when a baby was in his care this will be an important issue for them in respect of safeguarding your son.
My advice is that you and your husband work with children’s services to show that you recognise their concerns and are willing to do what is needed to be able to safely care for your baby together. It is good they you are both being proactive and engaging in counselling.
Should you wish to speak to an adviser, please telephone our confidential advice line on 0808 801 0366. /The advice line is open from 9.30m to 3pm Monday to Friday (except Bank Holidays).
I hope this is helpful.
Best wishes
Suzie
-
Wolfzone
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:59 pm
Re: CPO in place for fathers not guilty past,
Autrefois acquit - the law
Darling J. in Reg. v. Ollis [1900] 2 Q.B. 78 at p. 780 where he said:
"I feel sure that [the words 'bis vexatus'] are not to be understood as meaning that a man is not to be more than once annoyed by the same evidence. I think they mean that he is not to be by legal process twice exposed to the risk of being found guilty of the same crime . . ."
JFJ, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 569, Mr Justice Cranston The President of the Queen’s Bench Division at p.7, 45 & 46:
[7] “There is no doubt about the fundamental principle that underpins the decision on this issue - a person is not to be harassed or prosecuted twice for a crime. Thus if a person has been convicted of the crime previously, he cannot be tried again (autrefois convict); similarly if he has been acquitted of a crime, he cannot be tried again for the crime (autrefois acquit). A well known expression of the principle is that of Black J in the Supreme Court of the United States in Green v United States 355 U.S. 184, 188 (1957)
"The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty."
R v Elrington (1861) 1 B. & S. 688, Cockburn CJ and Blackburn J held that the defendant could rely upon the express words of the statute. Cockburn CJ added:
"We must bear in mind the well established principle of our criminal law that a series of charges shall not be preferred, and, whether a party accused of a minor offence is acquitted or convicted, he shall not be charged again on the same facts in more aggravated form."
[45]If the court sets a date for trial, the defendant attends and the prosecutor unsuccessfully applies for an adjournment of the trial, then the Magistrates are entitled to proceed with the trial. The defendant is then in peril. If the prosecution has no evidence to call, an acquittal by the Magistrates is at a time when the defendant is in peril for the purpose of autrefois. This is what happened in R v Swansea Justices ex p Purvis (1981) JP 252. After a plea of not guilty, the Magistrates adjourned the case for a trial. On the date fixed for the trial, the prosecution did not have its witnesses and sought an adjournment. The Magistrates, acting within their discretion, refused an adjournment. As the prosecution could not call any evidence against the defendant, they dismissed the charge. A fresh information was preferred. The Magistrates refused an application to dismiss the fresh information. In quashing the decision, Donaldson LJ (with whom Bingham J agreed) said:
"In the present context "on the merits" is a phrase which distinguishes between where a court is in a position to convict but does not do so and the position where a court is unable to proceed to consider the question of conviction or acquittal because it has no power, or thinks it has no power, to adjudicate."
The decision by Judge David QC (a very experienced and distinguished circuit judge) in R v Pressick [1978] Crim LR 377 was to the same effect.
[46] Those were cases where the trial had actually begun in the sense that the court was ready to hear the witnesses. It has, however, been suggested that a trial in the Magistrates' Court begins when a plea is taken. In Dabhade, Wright J in giving the judgment of the court set out in his first principle:
"For the principle of autrefois to apply, the defendant must have been put in jeopardy. Quite apart from all other requirements, he must demonstrate that the earlier proceedings that he relies upon must have been commenced - that is, by plea in summary proceedings, or by his being put in charge of the jury in a trial on indictment."
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police & Ors [1981] UKHL 13, Lord Diplock
“My Lords, collateral attack upon a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction may take a variety of forms. It is not surprising that no reported case is to be found in which the facts present a precise parallel with those of the instant case. But the principle applicable is, in my view, simply and clearly stated in those passages from the judgment of A. L. Smith, L.J. in Stephenson v. Garnett [1898] 1 Q.B. 677 and the speech of Lord Halsbury L.C. in Reichel v. Magrath 14 App. Cas. 665 which are cited by Golf L.J. in his judgment in the instant case. I need only repeat an extract from the passage which he cites from the judgment of A. L. Smith L.J.:
" the court ought to be slow to strike out a statement of claim or defence, and to dismiss an action as frivolous and vexatious, yet it ought to do so when, as here, it has been shown that the identical question sought to be raised has been already decided by a competent court."
The passage from Lord Halsbury's speech deserves repetition here in full:
" I think it would be a scandal to the administration of justice if, the same question having been disposed of by one case, the litigant were to be permitted by changing the form of the proceedings to set up the same case again."
and (A Child), Re (Care Threshold Criteria) [2006] EWCC 2 (Fam)), Mr Justice Hedley at p.40:
“I am not prepared to make specific findings about what happened before November 2004……whatever it was that happened was not then regarded as a potential for significant harm and it would, in my judgment, be quite wrong to resurrect those matters at this stage and, in any event, I strongly suspect it would be extremely difficult to be clear about what had or had not happened before November 2004.”
The above authorities on the point confirm that the LA in your case has no legal basis to interfere with your family's art.8 ECHR.
I hope this will help you.
Wolfzone
Darling J. in Reg. v. Ollis [1900] 2 Q.B. 78 at p. 780 where he said:
"I feel sure that [the words 'bis vexatus'] are not to be understood as meaning that a man is not to be more than once annoyed by the same evidence. I think they mean that he is not to be by legal process twice exposed to the risk of being found guilty of the same crime . . ."
JFJ, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 569, Mr Justice Cranston The President of the Queen’s Bench Division at p.7, 45 & 46:
[7] “There is no doubt about the fundamental principle that underpins the decision on this issue - a person is not to be harassed or prosecuted twice for a crime. Thus if a person has been convicted of the crime previously, he cannot be tried again (autrefois convict); similarly if he has been acquitted of a crime, he cannot be tried again for the crime (autrefois acquit). A well known expression of the principle is that of Black J in the Supreme Court of the United States in Green v United States 355 U.S. 184, 188 (1957)
"The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty."
R v Elrington (1861) 1 B. & S. 688, Cockburn CJ and Blackburn J held that the defendant could rely upon the express words of the statute. Cockburn CJ added:
"We must bear in mind the well established principle of our criminal law that a series of charges shall not be preferred, and, whether a party accused of a minor offence is acquitted or convicted, he shall not be charged again on the same facts in more aggravated form."
[45]If the court sets a date for trial, the defendant attends and the prosecutor unsuccessfully applies for an adjournment of the trial, then the Magistrates are entitled to proceed with the trial. The defendant is then in peril. If the prosecution has no evidence to call, an acquittal by the Magistrates is at a time when the defendant is in peril for the purpose of autrefois. This is what happened in R v Swansea Justices ex p Purvis (1981) JP 252. After a plea of not guilty, the Magistrates adjourned the case for a trial. On the date fixed for the trial, the prosecution did not have its witnesses and sought an adjournment. The Magistrates, acting within their discretion, refused an adjournment. As the prosecution could not call any evidence against the defendant, they dismissed the charge. A fresh information was preferred. The Magistrates refused an application to dismiss the fresh information. In quashing the decision, Donaldson LJ (with whom Bingham J agreed) said:
"In the present context "on the merits" is a phrase which distinguishes between where a court is in a position to convict but does not do so and the position where a court is unable to proceed to consider the question of conviction or acquittal because it has no power, or thinks it has no power, to adjudicate."
The decision by Judge David QC (a very experienced and distinguished circuit judge) in R v Pressick [1978] Crim LR 377 was to the same effect.
[46] Those were cases where the trial had actually begun in the sense that the court was ready to hear the witnesses. It has, however, been suggested that a trial in the Magistrates' Court begins when a plea is taken. In Dabhade, Wright J in giving the judgment of the court set out in his first principle:
"For the principle of autrefois to apply, the defendant must have been put in jeopardy. Quite apart from all other requirements, he must demonstrate that the earlier proceedings that he relies upon must have been commenced - that is, by plea in summary proceedings, or by his being put in charge of the jury in a trial on indictment."
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police & Ors [1981] UKHL 13, Lord Diplock
“My Lords, collateral attack upon a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction may take a variety of forms. It is not surprising that no reported case is to be found in which the facts present a precise parallel with those of the instant case. But the principle applicable is, in my view, simply and clearly stated in those passages from the judgment of A. L. Smith, L.J. in Stephenson v. Garnett [1898] 1 Q.B. 677 and the speech of Lord Halsbury L.C. in Reichel v. Magrath 14 App. Cas. 665 which are cited by Golf L.J. in his judgment in the instant case. I need only repeat an extract from the passage which he cites from the judgment of A. L. Smith L.J.:
" the court ought to be slow to strike out a statement of claim or defence, and to dismiss an action as frivolous and vexatious, yet it ought to do so when, as here, it has been shown that the identical question sought to be raised has been already decided by a competent court."
The passage from Lord Halsbury's speech deserves repetition here in full:
" I think it would be a scandal to the administration of justice if, the same question having been disposed of by one case, the litigant were to be permitted by changing the form of the proceedings to set up the same case again."
and (A Child), Re (Care Threshold Criteria) [2006] EWCC 2 (Fam)), Mr Justice Hedley at p.40:
“I am not prepared to make specific findings about what happened before November 2004……whatever it was that happened was not then regarded as a potential for significant harm and it would, in my judgment, be quite wrong to resurrect those matters at this stage and, in any event, I strongly suspect it would be extremely difficult to be clear about what had or had not happened before November 2004.”
The above authorities on the point confirm that the LA in your case has no legal basis to interfere with your family's art.8 ECHR.
I hope this will help you.
Wolfzone
-
Wolfzone
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:59 pm
Re: CPO in place for fathers not guilty past,
I would just like to clarify the law on the point, in case my first post here has caused any confusion.
So, as regards the first incident 6 years ago, your partner was acquitted on the allegation/charge and therefore he can not be prosecuted or harassed on that same question again in any court within the jurisdiction.
The only exception to this is where new evidence has come to light since the acquittal, in criminal proceedings that new evidence must be unassailable, establishing the guilt of your partner.
The family proceedings, the child care proceedings where the judge re-tried your partner on the self-same crime he was acquitted of is not permitted and therefore the order made against him in those proceedings is ultra vires and unlawful. The family law judge does not have jurisdiction to conduct a re-trial following an acquittal by a competent court of jurisdiction, in doing so, the judge has overstepped the limits of his/her jurisdiction in breach of the law and therefore the decision made against your partner in those public law proceedings has not been made by a tribunal established by law within the meaning of art.6(1) ECHR; SOKURENKO AND STRYGUN v. UKRAINE [2006]ECtHR.
In relation to the new recent issue, the county council will have grounds to interfere with your family's art.8 ECHR as a consequence of your reporting your partner's behaviour.
Supervised contact is of course far better than no contact.
It will be down to your partner to challenge the county council, and the order made 6 years ago.
Kind regards
Wolfzone
So, as regards the first incident 6 years ago, your partner was acquitted on the allegation/charge and therefore he can not be prosecuted or harassed on that same question again in any court within the jurisdiction.
The only exception to this is where new evidence has come to light since the acquittal, in criminal proceedings that new evidence must be unassailable, establishing the guilt of your partner.
The family proceedings, the child care proceedings where the judge re-tried your partner on the self-same crime he was acquitted of is not permitted and therefore the order made against him in those proceedings is ultra vires and unlawful. The family law judge does not have jurisdiction to conduct a re-trial following an acquittal by a competent court of jurisdiction, in doing so, the judge has overstepped the limits of his/her jurisdiction in breach of the law and therefore the decision made against your partner in those public law proceedings has not been made by a tribunal established by law within the meaning of art.6(1) ECHR; SOKURENKO AND STRYGUN v. UKRAINE [2006]ECtHR.
In relation to the new recent issue, the county council will have grounds to interfere with your family's art.8 ECHR as a consequence of your reporting your partner's behaviour.
Supervised contact is of course far better than no contact.
It will be down to your partner to challenge the county council, and the order made 6 years ago.
Kind regards
Wolfzone
Who is online
In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 2 minutes)
Most users ever online was 37 on Wed Jun 17, 2026 3:50 pm