AZ (The Mother) v A Local Authority & Ors

AZ (The Mother) v A Local Authority & Ors

The application to reopen fails because the new evidence (Snapchat message) and criticisms of SARC clinicians do not undermine the core findings of sexual abuse, neglect, and dishonesty. The Judge's findings were based on multiple sources, including independent expert evidence, and there is no solid ground to believe a rehearing would result in a different outcome. The threshold for reopening is not met.

Parties
Applicant: AZ (The Mother); First Respondent: A Local Authority; Second Respondent: BY (The Father); Third and Fourth Respondents: ZY and YY (The Children) (through their Children’s Guardian); Fifth and Sixth Respondents: CY and DY (The Paternal Grandparents); Intervenor: EX (The Intervenor)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Family / Application to Reopen Fact Finding Judgment
Outcome
Application to reopen fact finding judgment refused
Legal Topics
Reopening of Findings of Fact, Sexual Abuse Allegations, Expert Medical Evidence, Special Guardianship Orders, Credibility of Witnesses
Family Law Child Protection Reopening of Findings of Fact Sexual Abuse Allegations Expert Medical Evidence Special Guardianship Orders Credibility of Witnesses

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AZ (The Mother)

Applicant

A Local Authority

First Respondent

BY (The Father)

Second Respondent

ZY and YY (The Children) (through their Children’s Guardian)

Third and Fourth Respondents

CY and DY (The Paternal Grandparents)

Fifth and Sixth Respondents

EX (The Intervenor)

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Family / Application to Reopen Fact Finding Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence (Snapchat message) and subsequent material regarding SARC medical evidence justify reopening the fact finding judgment
  2. 2 Whether criticisms of SARC clinicians in other cases undermine the findings in this case

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen fails because the new evidence (Snapchat message) and criticisms of SARC clinicians do not undermine the core findings of sexual abuse, neglect, and dishonesty. The Judge's findings were based on multiple sources, including independent expert evidence, and there is no solid ground to believe a rehearing would result in a different outcome. The threshold for reopening is not met.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen fact finding judgment refused