K & KT (Children)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
- LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE
- SIR STANLEY BURNTON
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case revolves around the care proceedings for four children following the non-accidental injury of one child. The grandparents appealed the decision to place the children for adoption, alleging procedural errors, biases, and undue influence by experts and the children’s Guardian. The court reviewed these claims and found no substantial evidence or resultant impact from the alleged procedural irregularities. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court’s decision to place the children for adoption, supported by a thorough evaluation of evidence and an extensive judgment by the trial judge.
J U D G M E N T
1. LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE: This appeal concerns the outcome of long running care proceedings with respect to four children. The children are three boys and the youngest child is a girl. The eldest boy, JJ, is now five-and-three quarters, the second in order is A and he is four-and-a-half and the third in order is another J and he is 3 and the fourth, the daughter, is B and she is now 17 months of age.
2. The proceedings started as long ago as July 2012 when the third child, J, was taken to hospital and it was discovered that he had sustained a fractured tibia and fibula at the age of 15 months. Predictable steps therefore followed in terms of investigation and arrangements to protect the children. Within the care proceedings the judge, His Honour Judge Meston QC, who has had the conduct of these proceedings throughout, undertook a fact-finding investigation, at the conclusion of which he found that the injury to J had been caused by non accidental means and that the perpetrator was either the children's mother or her partner.
3. The future of the four children therefore fell to be determined against the backdrop of that significant finding. In the event, at the conclusion of the welfare stage of the proceedings, on 22nd November 2013, His Honour Judge Meston made full care orders with respect to each of the four children and authorised the local authority to place all four of them for adoption.
4. A prominent part was played throughout the children's life by their maternal grandparents, Mr and Mrs K, and indeed, so far as the eldest boy is concerned, he was living with the grandparents until he was taken into care. The grandparents were party to the care proceedings from an early stage and within those proceedings they put themselves forward as candidates to take on the care of all four children, if that were possible and granted by the court but, if not all four, then as many as the court felt were able to be placed with them. They are the appellants before the court today.
5. The background to the case does not require significant explanation by me in the course of this judgment because the points that are now relied upon in support of the appeal are largely to do with the process and procedure adopted at court and the approach that the experts and the judge took to certain historical allegations rather than the welfare evaluation conducted by the judge.
6. The case came before me as an application for permission to appeal on