H-D-H and C, Re (Children: Fact-Finding) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192 (30 July 2021)

H-D-H and C, Re (Children: Fact-Finding) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192 (30 July 2021)

The necessity of a fact-finding hearing depends on whether it is required to inform the welfare outcome for the child, considering the seriousness of the allegations, their relevance to future care planning, the impact on the parties, delay, and the public interest. In H-D-H, the judge's decision not to hold a fact-finding hearing was sustainable as further findings would not affect the welfare outcome. In C, the judge erred by giving undue weight to delay and failing to consider the need for clarity for future risk assessments and the untenable position of the foster carer; a fact-finding hearing was necessary and should proceed.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1192
Parties
Appellant Local Council (h D H): Kirklees Council; Appellant Local Authority (c): City of Wakefield Council; 1st Respondent: 1st Respondent (H-D-H); Respondent Children: Respondent Children by their Children's Guardian (H-D-H); Respondent Mother: Respondent Mother (C); Respondent Child: Respondent Child by their Children's Guardian (C); Intervenor: Intervenor (C)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Court) / Judgment on Appeal From Case Management Decisions in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal in H-D-H dismissed; appeal in C allowed and remitted for fact-finding hearing.
Legal Topics
Fact Finding Hearings, Case Management, Care Proceedings, Threshold Criteria, Welfare of the Child, Proportionality, Delay in Proceedings
Family Law Child Protection Fact Finding Hearings Case Management Care Proceedings Threshold Criteria Welfare of the Child Proportionality +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kirklees Council

Appellant Local Council (h D H)

City of Wakefield Council

Appellant Local Authority (c)

1st Respondent (H-D-H)

1st Respondent

Respondent Children by their Children's Guardian (H-D-H)

Respondent Children

Respondent Mother (C)

Respondent Mother

Respondent Child by their Children's Guardian (C)

Respondent Child

Intervenor (C)

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Court) / Judgment on Appeal From Case Management Decisions in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Court should conduct fact-finding hearings on serious allegations in care proceedings when not strictly necessary for immediate welfare outcome
  2. 2 How to balance necessity, proportionality, delay, and public interest in deciding the scope of fact-finding

Ratio Decidendi

The necessity of a fact-finding hearing depends on whether it is required to inform the welfare outcome for the child, considering the seriousness of the allegations, their relevance to future care planning, the impact on the parties, delay, and the public interest. In H-D-H, the judge's decision not to hold a fact-finding hearing was sustainable as further findings would not affect the welfare outcome. In C, the judge erred by giving undue weight to delay and failing to consider the need for clarity for future risk assessments and the untenable position of the foster carer; a fact-finding hearing was necessary and should proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal in H-D-H dismissed; appeal in C allowed and remitted for fact-finding hearing.

Orders

  • In H-D-H: Appeal dismissed; no fact-finding hearing to be held.
  • In C: Appeal allowed; matter remitted for fact-finding hearing before the judge.