Judge orders adjournment of fact-finding hearing for third time following information sharing failures

In Medway Council v MA & Ors [2026] EWFC 293 (09 October 2026), Michael Jones KC said: “In no way does the court suggest that the local authority acted deliberately in failing to disclosure the aforementioned information, rather the failure relates to what has proved to be an inadequate process of information sharing within the local authority.

“In circumstances where there is a failure of a local authority to notify the court and parties of the fact that a child in its care who has suffered allegedly inflicted injuries is being investigated for a further, potentially highly relevant, medical condition, then this will inevitably impact upon the Article 6 rights of the adult parties and the children, particularly given the possible implications that adverse findings could have upon their future.”

The case concerned two children, B and L.

B was aged 3 months at the time proceedings were commenced, whilst L was aged 15 months. B is now 2 years of age and L is now 3 years of age, with B having effectively been raised in foster care.

The judge noted that the local authority's application for care orders dated back to December 2024, meaning that the fact-finding exercise was listed to commence in week 100 of the proceedings. "This is despite the statutory provisions which provide for a resolution within 26 weeks.”

Summarising the background facts, the judge noted that the proceedings were instigated following the mother attending hospital with B in December 2024, with B having displayed apparent difficulties moving her arm.

Subsequent investigations revealed a displaced fracture to the left radius, a rib fracture, and multiple skull fractures. The mother had previously presented at hospital with B in November 2024 following a reported accidental fall.

The mother's explanation of a fall was deemed compatible with the presentation. Accordingly, no child protection referral was made to children's services following the November attendance.

The local authority issued care proceedings in December 2024 following a safeguarding referral received from the hospital as a result of B presenting with a number of fractures identified within CT and x-ray imaging, which clinicians deemed to be indicative of inflicted, or "non-accidental" injury.

At the time B sustained her injuries, the mother was residing with SN, her then partner.

The judge said: “It is not controversial that the relationship between the mother and SN involved a level of domestic abuse to which the children were exposed.”

The local authority issued its application for emergency protection orders in relation to both children in December 2024, with those orders being granted by a District Judge the following day.

The local authority issued an application for care orders a week later, and the following day, both children were made subject to interim care orders.

In January 2025, the matter came before the Designated Family Judge HHJ Davies, who approved the instruction pursuant to Part 25 FPR 2010 of both a paediatrician, Dr Birch, and a paediatric radiologist, Dr Olsen.

SN was invited to intervene within the proceedings, as was the maternal grandfather and his partner.

The matter was listed for a finding of fact hearing for the duration of 7 days, commencing in July 2025. That hearing proved to be ineffective due to the lack of any available judge to hear the matter, resulting in a Recorder utilising the hearing to deal with case management issues.

The local authority and the Children's Guardian then both confirmed that neither sought to pursue findings against the grandfather and his partner.

Following agreement on SN's part, the grandfather and his partner were discharged as intervenors by HHJ Scarratt at a further hearing in September 2025.

HHJ Scarratt granted permission to the parties to instruct a geneticist, Professor G, and listed the matter for a fact-finding hearing for 8 days commencing in late January 2026.

The fact-finding hearing listed in January 2026 was due to be heard by HHJ Coffey, however at a further case management hearing earlier in the month, HHJ Coffey was forced to vacate the fact-finding hearing as a result of Professor G's report being unavailable due to outstanding testing being awaited.

HHJ Coffey expressed concern at that point that there had been multiple hearings with no fact-finding hearing having yet been effective.

The judge noted: “The matter then came back before HHJ Coffey [in] February 2026: the order from this hearing is of particular note as it records the court's concerns in relation to the report from Professor G, which had by that point been received.

“It was recorded on the face of the order that the court determined that the report of Professor G was so fundamentally flawed that the instruction of an alternative expert geneticist would be required, namely Professor Saggar. HHJ Coffey also expressed extreme concern at the local authority's failure to proactively manage this case, including delays in obtaining evidence and a failure to ensure that the previously directed DNA paternity testing had taken place.”

The matter came back before HHJ Coffey for a final time in March 2026, where directions were made to list the matter for a fact-finding hearing in September 2026.

The matter came before Michael Jones KC for the first time in September for the purposes of a pre-trial review, at which point it became clear that a critical piece of evidence in the form of Professor Sagar's report was yet to be filed.

He said: “Although Professor Saggar's report was delayed due to an appointment not being attended, that report was filed on 31 August 2026, with the jointly instructed paediatrician Dr Birch then providing an addendum report on 4 September, 2 weeks before the fact-finding hearing was due to commence.

“Despite the late filing of those reports, all parties took the view that this hearing could still be effective, with this being the third attempt at holding a fact-finding hearing.”

The other outstanding evidence identified to the judge at the pre-trial review was that of a number of health visitor records.

He observed: “There have accordingly been 15 hearings within these proceedings which have taken place between 7 different judges, including myself. That does not include the 2 District Judges who dealt with the Emergency Protection Order application.”

During the hearing it became clear that the local authority had failed to ensure that relevant information and documents were obtained, fully reviewed and disclosed to the parties.

The judge said: “In circumstances where there is a failure of a local authority to notify the court and parties of the fact that a child in its care who has suffered allegedly inflicted injuries is being investigated for a further, potentially highly relevant, medical condition, then this will inevitably impact upon the Article 6 rights of the adult parties and the children, particularly given the possible implications that adverse findings could have upon their future.

“The letters and reports from a series of specialist appointments throughout 2025 clearly constituted relevant information which was not obtained and shared prior to the instruction of Dr Olsen and Dr Birch. This resulted in their instruction being undertaken in circumstances where they were not provided with important and relevant medical information regarding B.”

The judge continued: “In a case where an infant has suffered numerous fractures which the local authority asserts are inflicted and where the carers dispute this and medical experts have been instructed in order to consider the presence of any underlying medical conditions of relevance, it is surely a basic expectation that there should be adequate information sharing processes allowing for the legal department within the local authority to become aware of any ongoing medical investigations that are being undertaken in relation to the subject child.

“In this case, there was a significant failing in terms of information sharing.”

The judge however accepted that the case was “a rarity” and “not reflective of a broader pattern of systemic failings” within the local authority.

Having examined the procedural failings that occurred within the case, the judge outlined the following general practice requirements necessary in order to prevent a similar situation arising in the future: 

1. “There should be a workable system in place in order for legal services within the local authority to review foster carer logs, family time notes, Looked After Child (LAC) review meetings minutes and health reviews in relation to children who are the subject of care proceedings on an ongoing, regular basis;
2. Foster carer logs, family time notes, LAC review meetings minutes and health review documents should be served upon parties in a timely manner and on an ongoing basis throughout care proceedings;
3. There should be a workable and effective system of information sharing in place between the relevant health services and local authority children's services department;
4. Legal professionals must ensure that medical records are fully updated (i) prior to any expert instruction and (ii) prior to any substantive fact-finding or final hearing where threshold issues are to be dealt with;
5. Legal professionals should carefully review medical records following their receipt; and
6. In relation to looked-after children, the local authority must ensure that health information and information relating to and arising from medical appointments is shared with those with parental responsibility in a timely manner.”

In his final remarks, the Deputy High Court judge said: “Sadly, the real victims of the delay entailed by the adjournment which the court has been forced to grant are the two children at the heart of these proceedings, whose welfare must be the paramount concern of both the court and the local authority.

“[…] It is profoundly unfair to L and B and to the mother that they must wait over 2 years for a decision to be made in relation to L and B's welfare. Ultimately, even if the further medical information and investigations has no substantive impact upon the existing recommendations of the court appointed experts, the fact remains that there must be a fair process adopted for the children and the adult parties, with the experts being afforded sufficient time to properly consider all of the updating medical information which as I have already noted, still appears to be incomplete in some respects.”

“Having addressed the issues which have led to the current situation before the court and adjournment of the fact-finding hearing, I will now seek to fix new hearing dates and make the additional directions discussed with counsel during this hearing.”

Lottie Winson