In Re C & D (Refusal to Hold Fact-Finding Hearing) [2026] EWFC 155, the Court was asked to decide whether a separate fact-finding hearing was necessary following the unexplained death of a 14‑month‑old child. The local authority sought findings against the mother and potentially against the deceased child’s teenage sibling. Representing the mother, Nkumbe Ekaney KC, leading Herbert Anyiam, successfully argued that such a hearing would not be a necessary or proportionate use of the court’s resources where the threshold criteria were already established and the additional findings sought were unlikely to alter the welfare analysis, risk assessment, or ultimate outcome of the proceedings.

The court, applying the principles derived from Re G and the ‘Oxfordshire’ principles, agreed that a fact-finding hearing should not be directed. The judge concluded that the medical evidence was unlikely to identify a sole perpetrator and that any limited forensic benefit was outweighed by the significant emotional and psychological harm that further litigation would cause.

The decision is an important reaffirmation that fact-finding hearings must be justified by necessity and proportionality, and that the welfare impact of the process itself remains a central consideration for the court.