Court of Appeal clarifies fact-finding scope in child welfare proceedings

In G (A Child: Scope of Fact-finding), Re [2025] EWCA Civ 1044, the Court of Appeal examined critical questions surrounding fact-finding parameters in care proceedings, following tragic circumstances involving a mother's first child and subsequent concerns for her second child's welfare.

The case concerned M, whose infant son Z died under tragic circumstances when she was herself still a child. The local authority sought a fact-finding hearing to determine whether M's past actions contributed to Z's death, arguing this investigation was essential for assessing her capacity to safely parent her second child, X.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson delivered the lead judgement, emphasising the need for judicial flexibility when evaluating such sensitive matters. His Lordship noted that decisions regarding fact-finding scope significantly influence case management and children's wellbeing, citing established authorities that require courts to balance potential fact-discovery benefits against emotional and procedural investigation costs.

The local authority and children's guardian advanced multiple appeal grounds, contending that the judge's refusal to direct a fact-finding hearing would compromise X's welfare assessments. They maintained that without clear understanding of past events, evaluative processes necessary for determining appropriate protective measures would be fundamentally hindered.

Jackson LJ concluded that the first instance judge had approached the decision correctly, effectively weighing relevant factors including the potential impact on M—herself a victim of circumstances—and resources required for investigating events from seven years prior. Particular concern was expressed regarding the elapsed timeframe and prospects for conducting fair and effective fact-finding procedures at such temporal distance.

This cautious approach reflected understanding that establishing historical abuse or neglect does not automatically require risk assessments for future care to be directly tied to parental past actions. Jackson LJ reasoned that impulsive behaviour should not overshadow current assessments based on factual applications, noting that "risk planning would be able to have regard to risks including loss of control and conduct towards the child, including by 'shaking' without such a finding being made."

The judgement emphasised current assessment importance and how past actions should inform, rather than dictate, future welfare decisions. Jackson LJ maintained that courts must focus on present behaviours and capacities rather than definitively attributing past harms to current risk evaluations.

This approach recognises the complex interplay between historical events and contemporary parenting capacity. The court acknowledged that whilst past conduct may indicate potential risk patterns, present-day assessments should primarily determine child welfare outcomes. Such reasoning prevents historical events from creating insurmountable barriers to family reunification where current circumstances demonstrate changed parenting capacity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, determining that the local authority failed to provide sufficient justification for additional fact-finding layers. The decision reinforces judicial discretion in balancing thorough assessment needs against procedural proportionality, particularly where significant time has elapsed since relevant events.

G (A Child: Scope of Fact-finding), Re highlights ongoing tensions within child welfare jurisprudence between comprehensive investigation and practical case management. The judgement establishes that courts retain considerable discretion in determining fact-finding necessity, particularly where historical events occurred in different circumstances and substantial time has passed.

The decision provides valuable guidance on judicial approach to fact-finding scope in care proceedings, emphasising proportionality principles whilst maintaining focus on children's best interests. It clarifies that extensive historical investigation is not automatically required where current risk assessment can proceed effectively without definitive past event determination.