Introduction

The case of H-M (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 748 presents a significant appellate consideration concerning the reopening of fact-finding in family proceedings based on divergent outcomes in parallel criminal proceedings. This appeal challenges the refusal to reopen findings of fact where the Family Court's conclusions regarding the responsibility for serious injuries to a child differed from those reached in criminal court, specifically the acquittal of the mother and the conviction of her then-boyfriend, KF.

Key issues addressed include the compatibility of family and criminal court findings, the admissibility and impact of new evidence, and the standards required for an appellate court to overturn family court fact-finding. The parties involved include the appellant mother, KF, Hertfordshire County Council, and the Children's Guardian.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal to reopen the Family Court's fact-finding judgment. The Family Court had found that serious injuries to a one-year-old child could have been caused by either the mother or KF, while the criminal court convicted KF of causing these injuries and acquitted the mother. The mother sought to reopen the family court's findings on the basis of new evidence arising from the criminal proceedings, including KF's conviction and additional expert testimony.

The appellate court held that the differences in outcomes between the family and criminal courts did not, on their own, justify reopening the family court's fact-finding. The court emphasized that reopening requires solid grounds based on substantial new evidence that would likely alter the original findings. The additional evidence presented by the mother was deemed insufficient to mandate a reopening, maintaining the integrity and finality of the family court's original judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shape the standards for reopening family court fact-finding:

• Re Q (Fact-finding Rehearing) [2019] EWFC 60: This case outlines the conditions under which findings in care proceedings may be reopened, particularly when there are inconsistent verdicts in parallel criminal proceedings.
• Re E (Children: Reopening Findings of Fact) [2019] EWCA Civ 1447: Establishes that reopening is appropriate only when genuine new information significantly impacts the original findings.
• Re: W (Children: Reopening/Recusal) [2020] EWCA 1685 and Re W (Children: Recusal/Opening) [2009] EWCA Civ 1685: Discuss the rarity of varying fact-finding and the necessity for substantial new evidence to warrant a reopening.
• Re: Z-Z: Defines the requirement for "solid grounds" to believe that previous findings necessitate revisiting.

These precedents collectively reinforce a high threshold for reopening family court findings, emphasizing the need for concrete, material changes in evidence rather than mere inconsistencies in outcomes.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the principle that differing outcomes between family and criminal courts do not inherently invalidate the family court's findings. The Family Court's fact-finding is based on a broad assessment of evidence with a focus on the best interests of the child, which differs in scope and standard from criminal proceedings.

Key aspects of the reasoning include:

• Standard for Reopening: The mother must demonstrate solid grounds, supported by significant new evidence, that would likely alter the original findings. Mere divergence in criminal verdicts is insufficient.
• Evaluation of New Evidence: The additional evidence from the criminal trial, including expert testimonies and KF's conviction, was carefully scrutinized. The court found that much of this evidence was either already considered or did not materially impact the original findings.
• Discretion of the Trial Judge: The Family Court judge's thorough and considered evaluation of evidence, including assessments of credibility and behavior, was upheld. The appellate court deferred to this discretion unless clear legal errors were identified.
• Role of Experts: The court examined the credibility and methodology of expert witnesses, concluding that the new expert evidence did not undermine the original fact-finding to a degree warranting a rehearing.

The judgment underscores the importance of finality in family court decisions, provided they are reached through a comprehensive and reasoned process.

Impact

The decision has profound implications for family law, particularly regarding the integrity of fact-finding processes and the conditions under which they may be revisited. Key impacts include:

• Finality of Family Court Decisions: Reinforces the stability and finality of family court judgments, preventing frequent challenges based on subsequent criminal proceedings.
• High Threshold for Reopening: Establishes a stringent standard for reopening fact-finding, ensuring that only cases with substantial new evidence are reconsidered.
• Clarification of Roles: Highlights the distinct roles and standards of family versus criminal courts, emphasizing that divergent outcomes do not inherently invalidate each other.
• Guidance for Practitioners: Provides clear guidance for legal practitioners on the evidentiary requirements and procedural expectations when seeking to reopen family court findings.

Overall, the judgment upholds the sanctity of family court fact-finding while providing a clear framework for addressing exceptional cases where significant new evidence emerges.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reopening Applications in Family Courts

Reopening a fact-finding hearing means revisiting the conclusions previously reached by the family court regarding who is responsible for harm to a child. This is not a common occurrence and is only permissible under strict conditions.

Solid Grounds for Reopening

To reopen a case, the applicant (in this case, the mother) must present compelling new evidence that was not available during the original proceedings. This new information must be so significant that it could potentially change the court’s prior decision.

Difference Between Family and Criminal Courts

Family courts focus on the best interests of the child, evaluating a wide range of evidence to make determinations. Criminal courts, on the other hand, assess evidence to determine criminal liability with a higher standard of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). Discrepancies between courts do not automatically mean one is wrong; they serve different purposes and use different criteria.

Expert Witness Testimony

Experts can provide specialized knowledge to assist the court in understanding complex issues, such as medical evidence. The credibility and reliability of these experts are crucial, and their methodologies are closely examined to ensure their findings are sound.

Conclusion

The Re H-M (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 748 judgment underscores the robust standards required to reopen family court fact-finding based on outcomes in parallel criminal proceedings. By affirming that divergent criminal verdicts alone do not necessitate a revisit of family court findings, the Court of Appeal upholds the principle of finality in family law decisions. The case delineates clear boundaries and requirements for what constitutes sufficient grounds for reopening, thereby providing valuable guidance for future cases and ensuring the integrity of family court processes. This judgment reinforces that only substantial, material new evidence has the power to alter well-reasoned and comprehensive fact-finding conclusions in the interest of justice and the welfare of the child.