T (Fact-Finding: Second Appeal)

T (Fact-Finding: Second Appeal)

The appellate judge erred in law by failing to apply the correct appellate approach to findings of fact, improperly substituting his own evaluation for that of the trial judge, and wrongly dismissing the weight attached to the ABE interview and the trial judge’s credibility assessment. The trial judge’s findings were supported by a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and correct application of legal principles. The appeal is allowed and the trial judge’s findings are restored.

Parties
Appellant: Local Authority; First Respondent: Stepmother; Second Respondent: Father; Third Respondent: T (by her guardian); Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondents: Children's Guardian (for Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Respondents)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Second Appeal From Family Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; findings of the deputy district judge restored.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Fact Finding Hearings, Appeals, Assessment of Evidence, Children Act 1989, Interim Care Orders, Final Care Orders
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Fact Finding Hearings Appeals Assessment of Evidence Children Act 1989 Interim Care Orders +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

Stepmother

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

T (by her guardian)

Third Respondent

Children's Guardian (for Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Respondents)

Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (children Act 1989) / Second Appeal From Family Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellate judge erred in setting aside the fact-finding judge’s findings in care proceedings
  2. 2 Proper approach to appellate review of findings of fact in family cases
  3. 3 Weight to be attached to Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interviews with children

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate judge erred in law by failing to apply the correct appellate approach to findings of fact, improperly substituting his own evaluation for that of the trial judge, and wrongly dismissing the weight attached to the ABE interview and the trial judge’s credibility assessment. The trial judge’s findings were supported by a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and correct application of legal principles. The appeal is allowed and the trial judge’s findings are restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; findings of the deputy district judge restored.

Orders

  • The findings made by the deputy district judge are restored.
  • The appeal judge’s order setting aside the findings is set aside.