Re Z (Care Proceedings: Reopening of Fact Finding)

Re Z (Care Proceedings: Reopening of Fact Finding)

There are no solid grounds for reopening the 2016 findings of fact regarding Z's injuries. The only material new information is the pool finding against the father, which does not constitute direct evidence of perpetration. The similarities between injuries are not striking, and the passage of time has eroded the reliability of witness recollection. The welfare impact of a rehearing is limited, and the application is speculative and hopeful rather than based on solid grounds.

Parties
Applicant: A Mother; Respondent: A Local Authority; Respondent: Mother of X, Y and W; Respondent: Father; Respondent: Children by their children’s guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Application to Reopen Findings of Fact
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Reopening Findings of Fact, Care Proceedings, Pool of Perpetrators, Standard of Proof, Finality of Litigation
Family Law Child Protection Reopening Findings of Fact Care Proceedings Pool of Perpetrators Standard of Proof Finality of Litigation

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Mother

Applicant

A Local Authority

Respondent

Mother of X, Y and W

Respondent

Father

Respondent

Children by their children’s guardian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Application to Reopen Findings of Fact

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are solid grounds to reopen findings of fact made in 2016 regarding injuries to child Z
  2. 2 Whether new information, including a pool finding against the father, warrants reconsideration of the perpetrator of Z's injuries

Ratio Decidendi

There are no solid grounds for reopening the 2016 findings of fact regarding Z's injuries. The only material new information is the pool finding against the father, which does not constitute direct evidence of perpetration. The similarities between injuries are not striking, and the passage of time has eroded the reliability of witness recollection. The welfare impact of a rehearing is limited, and the application is speculative and hopeful rather than based on solid grounds.

Court Disposition

Application refused