A County Council vs L, S, and A

This case involved an application by a local authority to withdraw proceedings concerning a 2-year-old girl, A, who suffered a head injury. The application was supported by the parents and the child's Guardian.

TLDR:

• Local authority applied to withdraw proceedings regarding a child's head injury.
• The injury was initially suspected to be caused by trauma.
• Experts were divided on the cause of the injury.
• Parents consistently denied any traumatic event.
• The court considered the impact of further proceedings on the child's welfare.
• The court decided to allow the withdrawal of proceedings.

The case involved a 2-year-old girl, A, who suffered a head injury in February 2022. The injury led to immediate medical attention and subsequent surgery. The local authority initiated proceedings, suspecting non-accidental injury caused by trauma.

During the initial hearing, experts disagreed on whether the injury was due to shaking or impact or if it could be solely explained by the ruptured cortical bridging vein. Despite the medical evidence suggesting trauma, the parents denied any traumatic event.

Since the incident, A and her parents lived with the maternal grandparents, with supervised care arrangements. By December 2023, the parents were allowed unsupervised time with A for three hours daily. The care provided by the parents was consistently deemed exemplary.

The local authority, supported by the Guardian, believed it was in A's best interest to return to her parents' home. They argued that even if a new fact-finding hearing determined non-accidental injury, the care plan would remain unchanged.

The Court of Appeal's recent judgment in Re P and E (Care Proceedings: Whether to Hold Fact Finding Hearing) [2024] EWCA Civ 403 emphasized the need for a fact-specific approach. The court considered various factors, including the child's welfare, the cost to public funds, and the prospects of a fair trial.

Mrs Justice Judd highlighted that A's best interests lay in having a stable home environment with her parents. She noted the potential difficulties and costs of a new fact-finding hearing and the uncertain evidential outcome.

The court acknowledged that the parents had consistently cooperated with authorities and provided good care. The local authority and Guardian agreed that the care plan would not change, regardless of the hearing's outcome.

Considering all factors, Mrs Justice Judd concluded that continuing the proceedings was not in A's best interests. The potential stress and delay outweighed any benefits of further investigation. The court granted the application to withdraw the proceedings.

Legal representatives: Libby Harris (instructed by A County Council Legal Services) for the Applicant, Jonathan Wilkinson (instructed by Tayntons Llp Solicitors) for the 1st Respondent, James Tillyard KC and Nathan Jones (instructed by Langley Wellington Solicitors Solicitors) for the 2nd Respondent, Fiona Farquhar (instructed by Battrick Clark Solicitors) for the 3rd Respondent.

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mrs Justice Judd

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWFC 120