In the Matter of ZZ, AZ, FA, ARA, KA and ASA (Children)

In the Matter of ZZ, AZ, FA, ARA, KA and ASA (Children)

The District Judge did not reverse the burden of proof and properly reviewed the evidence, including retractions, before concluding that the original findings should stand. The legal burden remained with the local authority, and the retractions were not credible. The appeal fails as there was no factual or legal basis to discharge or vary the findings.

Parties
Appellant (father): SA; Mother: ZN; Child: ZZ; Child: AZ; Child: FA; Child: ARA; Child: KA; Child: ASA; Maternal Grandparent: MN; Maternal Grandparent: SP; Maternal Great Uncle: AM; Maternal Great Aunt: RM; Maternal Cousin: SS; Respondent: Local Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Appeal From District Judge Aitken's Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Review of Findings, Burden of Proof, Split Hearings, Threshold Criteria, Special Guardianship Orders
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Review of Findings Burden of Proof Split Hearings Threshold Criteria Special Guardianship Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SA

Appellant (father)

ZN

Mother

ZZ

Child

AZ

Child

FA

Child

ARA

Child

KA

Child

ASA

Child

MN

Maternal Grandparent

SP

Maternal Grandparent

AM

Maternal Great Uncle

RM

Maternal Great Aunt

SS

Maternal Cousin

Local Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Appeal From District Judge Aitken's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in law by reversing the burden of proof in reviewing findings
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge applied the correct legal test for reconsideration of findings
  3. 3 Whether the threshold criteria for care orders were met

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge did not reverse the burden of proof and properly reviewed the evidence, including retractions, before concluding that the original findings should stand. The legal burden remained with the local authority, and the retractions were not credible. The appeal fails as there was no factual or legal basis to discharge or vary the findings.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Original findings of District Judge Aitken stand
  • Residence orders for ZZ and AZ in favour of MN and SP