E and H (care proceedings – alleged FII – costs), Re

E and H (care proceedings – alleged FII – costs), Re

The local authority acted unreasonably and in breach of established guidance and court orders in both seeking and executing the emergency protection order and in its conduct during proceedings. There was no evidence to support findings of significant harm or FII. The authority failed to follow required protocols, did not provide full and candid disclosure, and persisted with proceedings without evidential basis. Justice required a costs order against the local authority, assessed on the indemnity basis.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; Respondent Mother: Mrs X (a mother); Second Respondent Father: Mr X (a father); Third and Fourth Respondent Children: Emma and Harry (by their children’s guardian Jennifer Arnold)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Final Judgment With Costs Determination
Outcome
Application by local authority dismissed; no findings of significant harm or FII; costs order against local authority.
Legal Topics
Emergency Protection Orders, Factitious Disorder/fabricated or Induced Illness (fii), Costs in Family Proceedings, Threshold Criteria, Expert Evidence, Procedural Fairness
Family Law Child Protection Civil Procedure Emergency Protection Orders Factitious Disorder/fabricated or Induced Illness (fii) Costs in Family Proceedings Threshold Criteria Expert Evidence +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

Mrs X (a mother)

Respondent Mother

Mr X (a father)

Second Respondent Father

Emma and Harry (by their children’s guardian Jennifer Arnold)

Third and Fourth Respondent Children

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Final Judgment With Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority acted lawfully and reasonably in seeking and executing an emergency protection order without notice
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for significant harm or risk of significant harm was met
  3. 3 Whether the mother fabricated or induced illness in her children

Ratio Decidendi

The local authority acted unreasonably and in breach of established guidance and court orders in both seeking and executing the emergency protection order and in its conduct during proceedings. There was no evidence to support findings of significant harm or FII. The authority failed to follow required protocols, did not provide full and candid disclosure, and persisted with proceedings without evidential basis. Justice required a costs order against the local authority, assessed on the indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Application by local authority dismissed; no findings of significant harm or FII; costs order against local authority.

Orders

  • No order on the local authority’s application for care proceedings.
  • Local authority to pay 50% of parents’ costs up to and including 2 November 2023 and 100% thereafter, assessed on the indemnity basis.