J & R (Children), Re

In care proceedings, the court must assess medical and other evidence in its totality. A further investigation or adjournment is justified only where there is a real prospect that the new evidence could produce a different conclusion. An isolated possibility affecting one injury will not justify reopening findings where the wider evidence remains decisive. Further parental assessment is likewise unnecessary where existing findings show that the parents cannot provide safe care, and improved contact does not address those fundamental concerns. Fact-finding hearings should be rare and generally confined to single-issue cases. In apparently complex medical cases, an issues resolution hearing with the key experts may clarify the true areas of agreement and disagreement more effectively than further reports.

The local authority had obtained care orders concerning two young boys after one child suffered serious intracranial, retinal and skeletal injuries. The parents had conceded that the established injuries were inflicted, but disputed responsibility and sought further assessment. Following the decision in the Devon case [2013] EWHC 968 (Fam), in which a possible medical explanation had been accepted on different evidence, the parents sought an adjournment to obtain further evidence from Professor Pope and to undergo further assessment. The central questions were whether the findings should be reopened and whether the placement application should be delayed.

1. The application for an open-ended adjournment, permission to obtain further evidence concerning possible bony fragility, and further parental assessment was refused. Placement orders were made.

2. The court must consider the totality of the evidence and must not isolate one aspect from the remainder. The medical evidence concerning the child’s brain damage and retinal haemorrhaging established that those injuries could not be explained by Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome or a clotting disorder. The possibility that an underlying condition might affect bony fragility therefore could not undermine the overall findings.

3. A further inquiry should be permitted where there is a real prospect that it may lead to a different conclusion. That threshold was not met. The proposed evidence concerned an isolated aspect of the injuries, while the existing medical evidence and the parents’ lack of reliability remained decisive. Further investigation would only delay the children’s outcome.

4. The Devon case [2013] EWHC 968 (Fam) was materially different. There, the medical evidence left a natural cause possible and the judge had been highly impressed by the parents’ evidence. Those features were absent here.

5. Further assessment was also refused. The existing findings showed that neither parent could provide the safe and nurturing care required. Better contact did not address those fundamental concerns.

6. By way of wider guidance, fact-finding hearings should now be rare and should generally occur only in single-issue cases. In apparently complex cases where expert disagreement remains, an issues resolution hearing involving the key medical witnesses may clarify the issues more effectively than commissioning further reports.

The judgment records that permission to appeal the earlier care decision was refused by Lady Justice Black. The present application was then adjourned to the judge who had made the findings. This was a first-instance determination of the applications for further evidence, further assessment and an adjournment.