Introduction

The case of P and E (Care Proceedings: Whether to Hold Fact-Finding Hearing) ([2024] EWCA Civ 403) brought before the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on April 26, 2024, addresses critical considerations in care proceedings, particularly concerning the necessity of fact-finding hearings. This case involves an appeal by a local authority and a children's guardian against a judge's decision to deem a fact-finding hearing unnecessary in the context of alleged non-accidental injuries inflicted upon two children, E and P, resulting in their removal from parental care.

The central issue revolves around whether a fact-finding hearing should be conducted when there is significant dispute regarding the causation of injuries to the children. The parents, both young and cooperative, contest the allegations of deliberate harm, prompting the local authority to seek a detailed examination of the facts through a hearing.

Summary of the Judgment

In the initial proceedings, HH Judge Watkins ordered a fact-finding hearing to investigate the circumstances surrounding the injuries sustained by child P. However, Lieven J in the Derbyshire case previously declined to hold such a hearing, citing similarities to that case. Both the local authority and the children's guardian appealed against this decision.

The Court of Appeal, presided over by Lord Justice Baker, evaluated whether the lower court appropriately applied legal principles when deciding against a fact-finding hearing. The Court scrutinized the judge's reliance on the Derbyshire case, emphasizing that each case's unique facts must guide such decisions. The higher court concluded that the judge erred by overly comparing the present case to the Derbyshire decision without adequately considering the distinct factors, particularly the evidence suggesting deliberate infliction of injuries.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's decision, mandating that a fact-finding hearing proceed to adequately assess the risks to the children's welfare and inform future care plans.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references key precedents that shape the legal framework for determining the necessity of fact-finding hearings in care proceedings:

• Oxfordshire County Council v DP, RS and BS [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam): Established a set of factors judges must consider when deciding on fact-finding hearings, including the child's interests, investigation costs, and potential impact on future care plans.
• Re H-D-H (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192: Reinforced and expanded upon the principles set in Oxfordshire, emphasizing flexibility and the overarching necessity to administer justice within the individual case context.
• Derbyshire County Council v AA and Others [2022] EWHC 3404 (Fam): A first-instance decision where the judge declined a fact-finding hearing, which was heavily relied upon by the lower court in the present case but was later deemed insufficiently analogous.
• Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41: Provided a framework for assessing risk factors and protective factors in child welfare cases.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's approach to balancing the necessity of fact-finding against procedural and welfare considerations.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal focused on whether the lower court appropriately applied the legal principles from Oxfordshire and Re H-D-H. Lord Justice Baker critiqued the judge's method of directly comparing the present case with the Derbyshire case, highlighting significant factual differences that warranted a distinct evaluation.

The appellate court emphasized that:

• Each care proceeding must be assessed on its individual facts, especially concerning the causation of injuries.
• The presence of evidence suggestive of deliberate harm necessitates a more thorough investigation through fact-finding.
• Reliance on previous first-instance decisions like Derbyshire is insufficient without a detailed analysis aligning the specific facts to established legal principles.

The court affirmed that the necessity or otherwise of fact-finding and the relevance of its potential findings to future care plans are paramount considerations that could significantly impact the welfare outcomes for the children involved.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the duty of courts to conduct fact-finding hearings in cases where the causation of injuries is contested, ensuring that all risks are thoroughly assessed to safeguard the children's welfare. It serves as a crucial reminder that while legal principles provide a framework, the unique circumstances of each case must guide judicial discretion.

Future cases involving disputed injury causation in care proceedings will likely reference EWCA Civ 403 to argue for the necessity of fact-finding hearings, promoting a more meticulous evaluation of evidence before making decisions that significantly affect family dynamics and child welfare.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The decision in P and E (Care Proceedings: Whether to Hold Fact-Finding Hearing) underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that care proceedings are thoroughly informed by accurate and comprehensive fact-finding, especially in scenarios where the cause of injuries is under dispute. By overturning the lower court's decision and mandating a fact-finding hearing, the Court of Appeal affirmed the necessity of detailed evidence assessment to safeguard children's welfare effectively.

This judgment serves as a pivotal reference point for future cases, highlighting the importance of adhering to established legal principles while cautiously considering each case's unique facts. It emphasizes that procedural discretion must not overshadow the fundamental need to protect vulnerable children, thereby reinforcing the integrity and responsiveness of the family court system.