Key Facts
- •A County Council applied to withdraw proceedings concerning a 2-year-old girl, A, who suffered a head injury.
- •The injury involved bleeding from a ruptured cortical bridging vein, with no clear evidence of shaking or impact.
- •Experts agreed the injury was traumatic but disagreed on the cause (shaking/impact vs. unknown natural cause).
- •Parents denied any traumatic event; their care of A has been consistently deemed exemplary.
- •A and her parents lived with maternal grandparents, with supervised care until December 2023.
- •The Court of Appeal had recently overturned previous findings against the parents.
- •The local authority and Guardian supported withdrawing the proceedings, prioritizing A's welfare and a swift return home.
- •A new fact-finding hearing would cause significant delay and cost.
Legal Principles
The court must consider the welfare of the child paramount when deciding whether to proceed with a fact-finding hearing.
Children Act 1989
The decision to hold a fact-finding hearing is fact-specific, balancing various factors including the child's welfare, cost, time, evidence, impact on care plans, and the potential for a fair trial.
Re P and E (Care Proceedings: Whether to Hold Fact Finding Hearing) [2024] EWCA Civ 403; Oxfordshire County Council v DP, RS, and BS [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam); Re H-D-H (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192
Outcomes
The court granted the local authority's application to withdraw proceedings.
The court found that the potential benefits of a new fact-finding hearing did not outweigh the harm caused by further delay and stress on A and her family. The uncertainty of the outcome and the exemplary care provided by the parents were key factors. The court prioritized A's need for a safe and secure home environment.