Re S (A Child: Findings of Fact)
[2023] EWCA Civ 346
Re H-W (Care proceedings: Further fact-finding hearing)
21 February 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 149
Court of Appeal
A court case about protecting kids involved new serious accusations. A judge said no to looking into them because it would take too long. A higher court disagreed, saying the accusations are too important to ignore and must be investigated.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against refusal of a further fact-finding hearing in long-running care proceedings.
- •Previous findings established threshold criteria under s.31 of the Children Act 1989.
- •Proceedings started in March 2020 and involved multiple appeals.
- •New allegations of sexual abuse against F3 made by a 12-year-old girl (Y), unrelated to the subject children but with a connection to F3 through previous relationships.
- •Local authority applied for a further fact-finding hearing based on Y's allegations.
- •Judge refused the application, citing concerns about delay, likelihood of proving allegations, and lack of medical evidence.
- •Local authority appealed the judge's decision.
Legal Principles
Principles for deciding whether to hold a fact-finding hearing (necessity, proportionality, child's interests, time, cost, evidential result, relevance to care plans, impact on parties, prospects of fair trial, justice of the case).
Oxfordshire County Council v DP, RS and BS [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam); Re H-D-H (Children), Re C (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192; Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v VW and others [2022] EWFC 83
Overriding objective in rule 1.4 of the Family Procedure Rules.
Family Procedure Rules
Care proceedings must be determined without delay and within 26 weeks (s.32(1)(a) Children Act 1989), with potential extensions under s.32(5).
Children Act 1989, s.32(1)(a), s.32(5)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The judge's refusal to order a further fact-finding hearing was plainly wrong. He failed to properly consider the relevance of the allegations to the care plans and improperly assessed the likelihood of proving the allegations without reviewing key evidence (ABE interview).