Re H-D-H (Children) Re C (A Child)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | King,Peter Jackson,Sir Patrick Elias |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWCA Civ 1192 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2021] EWCA Civ 1192
Before Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Peter Jackson and Sir Patrick Elias
COURT OF APPEAL
The longstanding guidance on when it was appropriate for the Family Court to hold a fact-finding hearing remained applicable.
The Court of Appeal so stated when: (i) dismissing the appeal of Kirklees Metropolitan borough council against decisions of Judge Hillier, sitting at the Leeds Family Court on March 2 and 25, 2021, in the case of the children, H-D-H; and (ii) allowing the appeal of the City of Wakefield metropolitan district council against a decision of Judge Murden, sitting in the Leeds Family Court on May 24, 2021, in the case of the child, C. In both cases the judges had made case management decisions in care proceedings not to hold fact-finding hearings into serious allegations relating to the children concerned.
Karl Rowley QC and Andrew Wynne for Kirklees council; Will Tyler QC and Huw Lippiatt for the first respondent in the H-D-H case; Deirdre Fottrell QC and Louise McCallum for the children, by their children's guardian, in the H-D-H case; Reagan Persaud for Wakefield council; David Orbaum for the mother in the C case; Alison Moore for the child, by his children's guardian in the C case. A foster carer intervened, by way of written submissions only, in the C case.
Lord Justice Peter Jackson said that the appeals raised the same question of principle and provided an opportunity for the court to review the longstanding guidance contained in A County Council v DP([2005] 2 FLR 1031) in the light of the current pressures on the Family Court.
Decisions about the scope of fact-finding were core case management decisions with particular consequences for the length and cost of proceedings, the impact of the litigation on parties and others, and the allocation of court time.
They arose in private law proceedings, including when a court was considering whether there should be a fact-finding hearing in relation to any disputed allegation of domestic abuse under Practice Direction 12J to the Family Procedure Rules, and in public law proceedings when the court was considering whether it should investigate a fact alleged as forming part of the threshold criteria for the making of a care or supervision order, under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, or as being relevant to the welfare decision.
Although the approach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v VW and Others
-
H-W (Care Proceedings: Further Fact-Finding Hearing)
...Council v DP, RS and BS [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam), as approved and developed by this Court in Re H-D-H (Children), Re C (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192. They have also been the subject of comment in a number of first instance decisions, most recently by Mostyn J in Barnsley Metropolitan Borou......
-
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v VW & Ors
...and scope of care proceedings as settling the future of a single child. However, recently, in Re H-D-H and C (children: fact-finding)[2021] EWCA Civ 1192, additional purposes had been deemed relevant (the ‘different child’ purpose, the ‘whole truth’ purpose and the ‘perpetrator identificati......
-
Sofia Bogolyubova v Gennadiy Bogolyubov
...was a case management order and the proper approach is that articulated by Peter Jackson LJ in the Practice Note in H-D-H (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 1192 at para.[23], which says that: “The reasoned case management choice of a judge who approaches the law correctly and takes all relevant f......