CA-2025-001564 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1368

This summary shows that the issue for the court was clear and relatively narrow. Unfortunately there was no judicial continuity, and the matter came before a variety of District Judges and Recorders. Eventually, at a pre-trial review on 13 February 2025, a direction was given for the final hearing to take place in late March with a lengthy time estimate of five days. Specific attention was given to the position of the uncle, who was not a party, and the order contained this recital (in all direct quotes I have anonymised the family members):

“AND UPON the Court considering it not necessary for the uncle to participate in the final hearing (as an intervenor or otherwise, save if there is an application for him to be called as a witness following receipt of his statement to be filed on behalf of the grandparents, if so advised), in the absence of the Local Authority seeking specific findings against him, noting that his underlying position/views have been clearly recorded in the assessments of him and which can be put to relevant witnesses via the Paternal Grandparents regarding risk in the household generally.”

The grandparents subsequently filed a statement by the uncle and, as anticipated by the recital, it was not challenged and he was not called as a witness.

That was the position when the matter first came before Recorder Youdan on 24 March 2025. By this time the bundle exceeded 2000 pages. Oral evidence was given by Ms Harold, by Ms Sensicle and by the social worker, whose evidence had to be paused on the third day of the hearing due to personal reasons. The hearing resumed on 2 June to complete her evidence and the court then heard from the father, the grandparents and the Guardian. Having heard submissions, the recorder delivered a written judgment on 5 June 2025. The hearing therefore lasted no less than seven days, a surprising length of time for such a clearly-defined issue.