P And E (Care Proceedings: Whether to Hold Fact-Finding Hearing), Re
[2024] EWCA Civ 403
D & Anor (Fact-Finding: Research Literature), Re
19 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 663
Court of Appeal
A baby got hurt, and a judge thought the parents were negligent based on her own research, not what the experts said. A higher court said the judge did her own research instead of listening to the experts, and overturned the decision. The case is over, the parents keep their kids.
Key Facts
- •A 7-month-old baby, A, suffered intracranial bleeding after an incident where he fell on a sofa.
- •A's parents and maternal grandparents were present.
- •The local authority initiated care proceedings, suspecting non-accidental injury.
- •Medical experts gave conflicting opinions on whether the injuries were accidental or inflicted.
- •The local authority sought to withdraw the proceedings, but the judge refused.
- •The judge delivered a lengthy judgment, heavily relying on her analysis of medical research literature.
- •The judge found that the injuries were likely caused by an acceleration/deceleration mechanism prior to the sofa incident, and were attributable to a lack of reasonable parental care.
- •The parents appealed the judge's findings.
- •The children were returned to parental care before the appeal hearing.
Legal Principles
Burden of proof rests on the local authority in care proceedings.
Various authorities cited in the judgment (section 22)
Evidence must be evaluated holistically, considering interrelation of different pieces of evidence.
Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558
The court, not the expert, weighs expert evidence against other evidence.
Re L and M [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam)
Applications to withdraw care proceedings must consider child welfare and the overriding objective.
Re GC (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 848
Experts must cite research material relied upon, and the judge can scrutinize it.
R v Abadom [1983] 1 WLR 126
The judge should not use research analysis independently to decide what happened.
Court's own reasoning
Court may make findings not expressly sought by parties, but must be cautious and ensure fairness.
Re S (A Child) [2015] 1 UKSC 20, Re G and B [2009] EWCA Civ 10, Re A, B and C [2023] 1 EWCA Civ 437
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; judge's findings set aside.
The judge's over-reliance on her own analysis of research literature, flawed treatment of evidence, and failure to consider the totality of the evidence led to an unsustainable conclusion.
Local authority granted leave to withdraw application for care order.
Given the appeal's success and the case's conclusion, a rehearing would be disproportionate. This is a substitute order for what the lower court could have done.