P and E (Care Proceedings: Whether to Hold Fact-Finding Hearing)

Factual and Procedural Background

The local authority and the children's guardian appealed a judge's decision in care proceedings which held that a fact-finding hearing was unnecessary. The proceedings concern two children, E and P, who were removed from the care of their mother and the mother's partner, referred to as "F," following injuries sustained by P shortly after birth. P suffered multiple injuries including a metaphyseal fracture, sub-conjunctival haemorrhages, and a rib fracture, which medical experts concluded were non-accidental and inflicted.

The local authority initiated care proceedings and interim care orders placed the children with their maternal grandmother. A fact-finding hearing was initially listed but later delayed due to the instruction of additional expert evidence. A parenting assessment, filed shortly before a subsequent hearing, was highly positive regarding the parents' engagement and care but noted the serious injuries to P and the inability to safely assess future risk without a finding as to how the injuries occurred.

At a hearing on 5 March 2024, the judge decided that a fact-finding hearing was neither necessary nor proportionate, based largely on comparisons with a previous case (the Derbyshire case) and the positive parenting assessment. The judge ordered that the threshold criteria would not be determined, meaning no public law orders could be made and the children could return to their parents under child in need provisions. The local authority's application for permission to appeal was initially refused but permission was later granted by this Court, and the proceedings stayed pending appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in deciding that a fact-finding hearing was unnecessary in care proceedings involving allegations of inflicted injury.
2. Whether the judge properly applied and balanced the relevant legal factors derived from case law in reaching the decision not to hold a fact-finding hearing.
3. Whether the decision to refuse a fact-finding hearing resulted in a summary dismissal of the local authority's case and inhibited the court's ability to protect the children.
4. Whether the judge's approach provides sufficient guidance on the investigation and procedural approach in cases of alleged inflicted injury in young children.
5. Whether the judge was correct to conclude that knowing "the truth" of the injuries would not be meaningful to the child given her age.

Arguments of the Parties

Local Authority's Arguments

• The judge failed to properly assess and balance the relevant factors from established case law, instead focusing on a comparison with a previous case (Derbyshire case).
• The decision to refuse a fact-finding hearing amounted to a summary dismissal of their application.
• The judge erred by assessing the child's welfare without an established factual basis, risking the return of the children without understanding the risks.
• There is a need for appellate guidance on how public authorities should approach investigation and procedure in such cases, to avoid unnecessary delays and public costs.
• The case is not a "single issue case" and the findings from a fact-finding hearing are fundamental to assessing future risk and appropriate care plans.

Guardian's Arguments

• The judge was wrong to hold that knowing the truth would not matter to the child given her age.
• The expert medical evidence supported that the injuries were inflicted by excessive force and the parents' explanations were rejected by experts.
• The issue of parental motivation and intent is a matter for a fact-finding hearing.
• Findings of fact would significantly inform risk assessments and welfare outcomes, potentially affecting the children's future care arrangements.
• The refusal to hold a fact-finding hearing deprived the court of the opportunity to make informed findings and left the local authority to manage placements without a full understanding of risk.

Mother's Counsel's Arguments

• The judge applied the correct legal principles as established in Oxfordshire and Re H-D-H cases.
• Although the judge did not explicitly structure her analysis by reference to all factors, she considered all relevant matters before concluding no public law orders were necessary.
• The parenting assessment was highly positive, showing parents' cooperation and commitment to meeting children's needs.
• Other tribunals might differ, but the judge's decision was within her discretion and should not be interfered with.
• Further delay caused by additional investigations, such as obstetric history and medical conditions, would not serve the children's welfare.

F's Counsel's Arguments

• Supported the judge's decision as a proper exercise of discretion applying the correct principles.
• Noted that some risk factors cited by the local authority were not relied on before the judge and thus should not affect the decision.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Oxfordshire County Council v DP, RS and BS [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam)	Factors to consider when deciding whether to hold a fact-finding hearing in care proceedings.	Established a checklist of relevant factors guiding necessity and proportionality of fact-finding hearings; the court emphasized flexible application of these principles.
Re H-D-H (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192	Approval and amplification of Oxfordshire principles, emphasizing the overriding objective and flexible approach.	Confirmed continuing validity of Oxfordshire factors and explained their application in context of the Family Procedure Rules and 26-week rule.
Derbyshire County Council v AA and Others [2022] EWHC 3404 (Fam)	Case management discretion exercised to refuse fact-finding hearing where it was neither necessary nor proportionate.	The judge in the present case relied on this decision for comparison, which was later found to be an erroneous basis for refusal.
K v K [2022] EWCA Civ 468	Relevant case law cited in consideration of fact-finding hearings and welfare assessments.	Used to support legal principles on fact-finding hearings.
Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41	Framework of risk and protective factors relevant to welfare assessments in care proceedings.	Referenced in assessing risk factors and parenting capacity in the present case.
Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558	Judicial approach to assessing evidence and weighing case facts in care proceedings.	Reiterated the need for comprehensive evaluation of evidence, usually at fact-finding hearings rather than case management stage.
Re H-W (Care Proceedings: Further Fact-Finding Hearing) [2023] EWCA Civ 149	Emphasized importance of necessity and relevance of fact-finding hearings to future care plans.	Supported the view that necessity and relevance are decisive factors in ordering fact-finding hearings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged the established legal principles from Oxfordshire and Re H-D-H, which provide a flexible framework of factors to be considered when deciding on the necessity and proportionality of fact-finding hearings in care proceedings. The judge below erred in basing her decision primarily on factual similarity to the Derbyshire case, which was distinguishable in key respects, including the nature and number of injuries, and the presence of evidence capable of supporting deliberate infliction in the present case.

The Court emphasized that fact-finding hearings are critical to establishing the facts necessary for assessing future risk and making informed welfare decisions. The parenting assessment, while positive, explicitly stated the inability to safely recommend management of potential risk without findings on how the injuries occurred. The judge's failure to address this aspect was a fatal flaw.

The Court rejected the characterization of the case as a "single issue case," noting that the welfare assessment must consider a broad range of factors beyond the immediate cause of injury. The judge's comparison to the Derbyshire case was inappropriate given material differences in evidence and circumstances.

The Court concluded that the judge did not properly apply the relevant legal principles and failed to take into account all pertinent factors, particularly the necessity of fact-finding for safeguarding the children's welfare. The decision was therefore outside the proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Holding and Implications

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order refusing a fact-finding hearing, and ordered that a fact-finding hearing should proceed. The proceedings were remitted to the Designated Family Judge for urgent case management directions.

The direct effect of this decision is that the care proceedings will continue with a fact-finding hearing to determine the cause and circumstances of the injuries sustained by the child. This will enable a proper assessment of future risk and informed welfare decisions regarding the children's care arrangements.

No new legal precedent was established; rather, the Court reaffirmed the correct application of existing principles and emphasized the necessity of fact-finding hearings where findings are fundamental to welfare decisions.