Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

Re X (A Child) (No 3) [2016] EWHC 2755 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:14 PM
Public law children – Care proceedings – Appeal – Application for rehearing – Birth parents withdrew challenge to findings – Whether the rehearing could and should proceed
The President held that the rehearing of a fact finding should proceed despite the birth parents withdrawing their challenge to the original findings.
Slug : re-x-a-child-no-3-2016-ewhc-2755-fam
Meta Title : Re X (A Child) (No 3) [2016] EWHC 2755 (Fam)
Meta Keywords : Public law children – Care proceedings – Appeal – Application for rehearing – Birth parents withdrew challenge to findings – Whether the rehearing could and should proceed
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 4, 2016, 05:29 AM
Article ID : 114466

(Family Division, Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, 2 November 2016)

Public law children – Care proceedings – Appeal – Application for rehearing – Birth parents withdrew challenge to findings – Whether the rehearing could and should proceed

The President held that the rehearing of a fact finding should proceed despite the birth parents withdrawing their challenge to the original findings.

Care proceedings were initiated in relation to the 4-year-old child, X, when it was discovered that X had suffered various injuries including metaphyseal fractures. A fact-finding hearing concluded that the injuries had been cause by one or other or both parents. X was placed with prospective adopters who applied for an adoption order. The parents were refused permission to oppose the adoption.

In 2015 the parents stood trial for child cruelty offences under s 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 but were acquitted when the prosecution abandoned its case. Thereafter the parents sought permission to appeal out of time the original findings in care proceedings. The local authority conceded that the findings needed to be reconsidered in light of the evidence adduced in the criminal proceedings. The local authority applied under the inherent jurisdiction for a re-hearing of the fact findings.

Prior to the scheduled rehearing the parents contacted the court asserting that they no longer sought to challenge the original findings. They maintained that they did not harm X but they recognised that it would not be in the child’s best interests to be removed from the care of the prospective adopters where X was settled. It fell to be determined whether the rehearing could and should proceed.

The President held that the rehearing should proceed. The best interests of X and the public interest pointed affirmatively in that direction. The rehearing must proceed so that the truth could be ascertained finally and definitely in light of all of the available evidence. If the birth parents chose to take no part in the rehearing the court could be reasonably confident of their positions and that the essential fairness and validity of the process would not be compromised.


Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 2755 (Fam)
Case number omitted

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Date: 2 November 2016



Before:
SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

In the Matter of X (A Child) (No 3)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Ms Sarah Morgan QC and Ms Sharon Segal (instructed by the local authority’s Legal Services) for the local authority
Ms Martha Cover and Ms Katy Rensten (instructed by Goodman Ray) for the  birth mother
Mr Mark Twomey (instructed by Philcox Gray) for the birth father
Ms Deirdre Fottrell QC and Ms Marlene Cayoun (instructed by Russell Cooke) for the adoptive parents
Mr Andrew Norton QC and Mr Christopher Archer (instructed by Creighton & Partners) for the child X


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Hearing dates: 17, 19 October 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Re X (A Child) (No 3) [2016] EWHC 2755 (Fam)

Approved Judgment
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Public Law Children
Tags :
FLR
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Load more comments
Comment by from