A County Council v DP
which, having regard to the paramountcy of the child’s welfare and the overriding objective in the FPR, can be restated in these terms: (a)the necessity of the investigation and the relevance of the potential result to the future care plans for the child; (b)the obligation to deal with cases justly; (c)whether the hearing would be proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues; (d)the prospects of a fair trial of the issues and the impact of any fact-finding process on other parties; (e)the time the investigation would take and the likely cost to public funds.” Analysis 25.The local authority assert that there is no reasonable prospect that threshold can be proved. The first issue for the court to determine is whether this application falls within the first category of cases – the obvious. As the evidence stands there is no evidence to support a finding of an inflicted head injury. While Dr Cartlidge defers to Dr Cary on asphyxiation, Dr Cary in his response appears not to consider this cause to remain open. Rather Dr Cary considers that the outstanding information will be relevant to the possibility of a shaking injury which has been excluded by the medical opinions. Whilst Dr Cary leaves the matter open, he associates himself with Dr Cartlidge and does not draw attention to the possibility of an inflicted cause.26.If the “obvious” test is not satisfied the court will have to assess the application be reference to the five principles summarised in GC:i)The investigation would be necessary to establish whether P’s cause of death was inflicted. If proved, the outcome would have a profound effect upon interim and final care -planning; ii)A fact-finding hearing would provide a just process by which to deal with the case; iii)Given the severity of the issues at large the fact-finding hearing would be proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the issues. iv)The trial would be a fair process; the events are recent, a high level of expert opinion has been collected and the interested parties all have representation. Despite this the impact upon the family would be considerable. The parents would no doubt find the process of a fact-finding hearing extremely stressful and distressing, their distress being obvious at every stage of the court process. v)The fact-finding hearing is already listed. Given the large measure of agreement between experts and the absence of intervenors, the current timeestimate is likely to be capable of reduction. The cost nevertheless of the factfinding hearing will be high, albeit proportionate given the severity of the issues to be determined and their impact upon S and R. Conclusion 27.Given that it is not contended that this case now falls into the second category and, clearly falls into the first, as identified by Baker LJ, and comforted by my assessment so far of all the evidence, including the conduct of the parents, whilst it might still be thought by some necessary to hold a fact finding hearing, no one advocates such a course, and I do not consider that such a course is appropriate given that I also conclude that it clearly falls within the first category of GC. 28.Accordingly (having already endorsed the decision for the family to be reunited), I give the local authority permission to withdraw the proceedings. No findings have therefore been made. I have hesitated (since not all the tests are back) as to whether it is appropriate to exonerate the parents of any wrongdoing or responsibility. Standing back, I have concluded overall that it is. This family were previously unknown to the authorities, it is perfectly obvious that they are a close and decent family, where the children were and are lovingly and attentively cared for, and who have behaved appropriately at all times in unimaginably distressing circumstances. Whilst the local authority could not possibly be criticised for the steps which they have taken, indeed quite the reverse, all the evidence now so clearly points in one direction, that this was a tragic accident, that it is appropriate that I should exonerate the parents, and I do so.