Webster (a minor), Re

Findings made in concluded care and adoption proceedings cannot be reopened for the purposes of those proceedings. They may, however, be relied upon in later proceedings concerning another child if they remain a reliable basis for decisions affecting that child. Where significant fresh medical evidence fundamentally undermines the evidential basis of earlier findings, the court may require the relevant issue to be investigated afresh. The earlier findings cannot then stand as proof in the later proceedings.

The parents had previously been found to have caused non-accidental injuries to child B, and their three children were subsequently freed for adoption and adopted. After the birth of a fourth child, Brandon, the local authority commenced care proceedings. The parents obtained fresh expert evidence suggesting that child B’s injuries might have resulted from scurvy and nutritional deficiency.

They applied to reopen the findings made in the earlier proceedings. The central issues were whether those concluded proceedings could be reopened and whether the earlier medical findings could be relied upon in the current proceedings concerning Brandon.

1. The application to reopen the earlier proceedings was dismissed. The care and adoption proceedings concerning children A, B and C had been finally concluded, and the adoption orders could not be reopened. The findings made in those proceedings therefore continued to stand for all purposes directly connected with them.
2. In later proceedings concerning another child, earlier findings may be relied upon without relitigating the same issue where they provide a clear and reliable basis for decisions affecting the later child. However, the court must consider whether the issue should be tried afresh, having regard to the earlier findings, the evidence on which they were based, the present evidence, the welfare of the child and the impact of delay. The approach in Re B (Children Act proceedings) (Issue estoppel) [1997] 1 FLR 285 was adopted.
3. On the evidence then available, the fresh reports raised a realistic possibility that scurvy could explain the radiological findings previously attributed to non-accidental injury. It was impossible to place that evidence alongside the 2004 findings and assess their combined weight without reopening the medical inquiry.
4. Accordingly, insofar as the earlier findings concerned the radiological presentation and possible non-accidental injury, they were to be completely disregarded in the proceedings concerning Brandon. If the local authority or guardian wished to allege that either parent had non-accidentally injured child B, the allegation had to be formulated and proved by fresh written and oral evidence. The earlier findings could not stand as proof.

First-instance directions hearing in care proceedings concerning Brandon. The judgment itself does not state any prior appellate decision.