Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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