GC v A County Counci & Ors

A local authority requires the court’s permission to withdraw care proceedings. Permission must be granted where it is obvious that the statutory threshold cannot be satisfied. Where satisfaction of the threshold remains possible, the court must consider the child’s welfare, the overriding objective and the necessity, fairness, proportionality, duration and cost of continuing the proceedings.

Expert evidence must be assessed with all the other evidence. The judge, rather than the experts, determines whether the threshold is established. Where written medical evidence leaves material possibilities unresolved and the reliability of lay accounts requires examination, the court cannot summarily conclude that the threshold is unattainable. A necessary and proportionate fact-finding hearing should proceed, with the burden of proof remaining on the local authority.

A children’s guardian appealed against a Family Court order granting a local authority permission to withdraw care proceedings concerning a baby who had sustained a skull fracture and haematoma. The injuries were initially unexplained. The grandparents later described a fall onto a wooden table, which one medical expert regarded as plausible and the other as highly unlikely but possible.

The judge concluded on the written evidence that the local authority had insufficient evidence to establish the threshold under the Children Act 1989. She considered a fact-finding hearing unnecessary and disproportionate. The central issues were whether the judge had wrongly decided the threshold issue without testing the lay and expert evidence and whether she had failed to apply the welfare and proportionality factors governing withdrawal.

1. Appeal allowed. The Family Court’s order permitting withdrawal was set aside. The fact-finding hearing was directed to proceed as originally listed.

2. Under Rule 29.4(2) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, care proceedings may be withdrawn only with the court’s permission. Applications fall into two categories. If it is obvious that the local authority cannot satisfy the threshold criteria in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, permission must be granted. If the threshold remains capable of being satisfied, the court must consider the child’s welfare and the overriding objective.

3. In the second category, relevant considerations include the necessity of the investigation and its significance for future care plans; the obligation to deal with the case justly; proportionality; the prospects of a fair hearing and its impact on the parties; and the likely duration and public cost.

4. The written medical evidence did not make it obvious that the threshold could not be crossed. The newly reported fall was a possible explanation, but the experts expressed significant reservations. The injuries could have been non-accidental, and their timing and cause could not properly be determined without evaluating the family’s evidence and testing the expert opinions.

5. Evidence must be assessed as a whole. Medical opinions do not determine the ultimate facts. The judge must weigh them against the lay evidence and retains responsibility for deciding whether the local authority has proved its case. This was a paradigm case requiring oral evidence and cross-examination.

6. The findings would have major consequences for the child’s future care whether the local authority succeeded or failed. The retained hearing date avoided delay, cost was not significant, and there was no reason to anticipate an unfair trial. Continuing the proceedings was therefore necessary, proportionate and in the child’s best interests. The burden of proof remained throughout on the local authority.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed in [2020] EWCA Civ 848. The withdrawal order was set aside and directions were made for the planned fact-finding hearing to proceed.

2. Family Court at Coventry: HH Judge Watson granted the local authority permission to withdraw its care proceedings and refused the guardian permission to appeal.