Re H-W (Care proceedings: Further fact-finding hearing)

Re H-W (Care proceedings: Further fact-finding hearing)

The judge erred by failing to apply the correct legal principles, taking into account irrelevant matters (such as the absence of medical evidence and the historic nature of the allegations) and failing to consider relevant matters (the necessity and direct relevance of the investigation to the welfare decision). The refusal to order a further fact-finding hearing was outside the ambit of judicial discretion and plainly wrong given the potential impact on the children's care plans.

Parties
Appellant: Local Authority; First Respondent: Mother; Fourth Respondent: F3; Children's Guardian: Children, by their Guardian; Second Respondent: F1; Third Respondent: F2
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Appeal From Refusal of Further Fact Finding Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings, Threshold Criteria, Case Management, Proportionality Analysis
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings Threshold Criteria Case Management Proportionality Analysis

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

Mother

First Respondent

F3

Fourth Respondent

Children, by their Guardian

Children's Guardian

F1

Second Respondent

F2

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Appeal From Refusal of Further Fact Finding Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing a further fact-finding hearing regarding new allegations of sexual abuse against F3
  2. 2 Whether the judge applied the correct legal principles in deciding the necessity and proportionality of a further fact-finding hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by failing to apply the correct legal principles, taking into account irrelevant matters (such as the absence of medical evidence and the historic nature of the allegations) and failing to consider relevant matters (the necessity and direct relevance of the investigation to the welfare decision). The refusal to order a further fact-finding hearing was outside the ambit of judicial discretion and plainly wrong given the potential impact on the children's care plans.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The refusal of a further fact-finding hearing is set aside.
  • The case is remitted for a further fact-finding hearing of Y's allegations against F3.