S v Birmingham City Council & Ors [2024] EWFC 244 (B) (24 April 2024)

S v Birmingham City Council & Ors [2024] EWFC 244 (B) (24 April 2024)

The application to reopen the threshold and welfare findings was dismissed because there were no solid grounds to believe the earlier findings required revisiting. The fresh evidence (intermediary report) did not demonstrate that the absence of an intermediary rendered the original proceedings unfair or would have led to a different outcome. The mother's non-attendance was by choice, and her disengagement undermined the argument that an intermediary would have changed her participation or the result. Permission to appeal was refused as there was no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 244 (B)
Parties
Applicant: S; First Respondent: Birmingham City Council; Second Respondent: H; Third Respondent: F; Fourth to Sixth Respondents: The Children, via their Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Care and Placement Orders / Application to Reopen Findings and Welfare Judgment; Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application to reopen findings dismissed; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Placement Orders, Reopening Findings, Procedural Fairness, Vulnerable Parties, Intermediaries, Article 6 ECHR, Appeal Permission
Family Law Care Orders Placement Orders Reopening Findings Procedural Fairness Vulnerable Parties Intermediaries Article 6 ECHR +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 6 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Applicant

Birmingham City Council

First Respondent

H

Second Respondent

F

Third Respondent

The Children, via their Guardian

Fourth to Sixth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Family Law Care and Placement Orders / Application to Reopen Findings and Welfare Judgment; Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold and welfare findings from March 2023 should be reopened due to fresh evidence and alleged procedural unfairness (absence of intermediary)
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an intermediary rendered the proceedings unfair and breached Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether new evidence would likely result in a different outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen the threshold and welfare findings was dismissed because there were no solid grounds to believe the earlier findings required revisiting. The fresh evidence (intermediary report) did not demonstrate that the absence of an intermediary rendered the original proceedings unfair or would have led to a different outcome. The mother's non-attendance was by choice, and her disengagement undermined the argument that an intermediary would have changed her participation or the result. Permission to appeal was refused as there was no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen findings dismissed; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application to reopen threshold and welfare findings is dismissed.
  • Permission to appeal is refused.