F-H (Children), Re

F-H (Children), Re

The judge at first instance erred in refusing to conduct the fact-finding hearing into the allegations of sexual abuse by A. The refusal was not justified by the mother’s acceptance of the allegations, the possibility of criminal proceedings, or the existence of other threshold grounds. The absence of findings left the court and professionals without the necessary factual basis to determine the children’s future care and undermined the proceedings. The order prohibiting the local authority from seeking findings against A was set aside.

Parties
Applicant / Appellant Local Authority: London Borough of Brent; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Father of C, D and E; Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondents: Children (C, D, E, B) by their Children’s Guardian; Intervener: A (adult sibling)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children) / Appeal From Family Division (principal Registry) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings, Sexual Abuse Allegations, Judicial Discretion, Threshold Criteria Under Children Act 1989
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings Sexual Abuse Allegations Judicial Discretion Threshold Criteria Under Children Act 1989

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Brent

Applicant / Appellant Local Authority

Mother

First Respondent

Father of C, D and E

Second Respondent

Children (C, D, E, B) by their Children’s Guardian

Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondents

A (adult sibling)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children) / Appeal From Family Division (principal Registry) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge at first instance erred in declining to conduct a prearranged fact-finding hearing into allegations of sexual abuse by A against the children.
  2. 2 Whether the judge’s refusal to make findings on disputed facts undermined the ability of the court and professionals to determine the children’s future care arrangements.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance erred in refusing to conduct the fact-finding hearing into the allegations of sexual abuse by A. The refusal was not justified by the mother’s acceptance of the allegations, the possibility of criminal proceedings, or the existence of other threshold grounds. The absence of findings left the court and professionals without the necessary factual basis to determine the children’s future care and undermined the proceedings. The order prohibiting the local authority from seeking findings against A was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted.
  • Order prohibiting the local authority from seeking findings of sexual abuse against A set aside.