Peter Rothery

Notable Cases

• Blackpool Borough Council v Langley and Ors (No.3) (Publication of Judgments) [2026] EWHC 1100 (Fam)

  Family

  In a further judgement in the Langley case, MacDonald J considered the principles of transparency, confidentiality and welfare as they apply to the decision of whether or not a parent in care proceedings should be named.   

  The Court decided that the publicity about previous criminal proceedings, and newspaper reports about ‘rogue’ experts meant that jigsaw identification of the mother was inevitable even if the published judgment was anonymised.   Further, preventing the mother being named would inhibit press reporting of the issues raised by teh different outcomes in the criminal and family cases and of a central matter of public interest in this case , namely the competence of experts who give evidence before the family courts.

  Blackpool Borough Council v Langley and Ors (No.3) (Publication of Judgments) - Find Case Law - The National Archives

• Blackpool Borough Council v Langley and Ors (No.2) (Re-opening of Findings) [2026] EWFC 69

  Family

  Peter appeared for the child in a rehearing of a case originally heard in 2023, which looked at a medical controversy concerning the pathology of rib fractures in baby Edith who died in the care of her mother when 8 weeks old.

  At the original hearing the Court had found the mother, Laura Langley,  caused Edith’s death by squeezing her chest, having done the same on an earlier occasion.   Subsequent criminal proceedings led to the mother’s acquittal after the Crown offered no evidence because of new medical evidence.   The mother then applied for a rehearing in the family proceedings.

  The Court considered complex and conflicting medical evidence about eh incident of rib fractures following CPR in infants, multiple possible causes of bone fragility and whether very small disruptions in the bone matrix (micro injuries) are physiological or have forensic significance in indicating possible abuse.

  After the rehearing MacDonald J gave a magisterial judgment in which he was critical of three of the experts who had given evidence in the criminal proceedings finding their evidence fell below the high standard expected of expert witnesses giving evidence before the family court and their evidence appears to have placed a significant role in the decision of the CPS to offer no evidence in the mother’s murder trial.

  Of Peter’s contribution to the case the Court said “The parties and the court owe a debt of gratitude for the hard work of Mr Rothery, and his instructing solicitor Ms Alison Bone, for marshalling the expert evidence in this case. Mr Rothery’s chairing of the experts meetings on 21 May 2025 and 3 July 2025 was a model of controlled and impartial moderation that greatly assisted the court by clarifying and further illuminating the complex medical issues arising in this case."

  Blackpool Borough Council v Langley and Ors (No.2) (Re-opening of Findings) - Find Case Law - The National Archives

• Re C & D (Refusal to Hold Fact-Finding Hearing ) [2026] EWFC 155

  Family Law

  Peter Rothery, led by Nick Goodwin KC of Harcourt Chambers, and instructed by Jennifer Stephenson of Alfred Newton Solicitors, appeared in C and D (Refusal to Hold Fact-Finding Hearing) for C, the third respondent child whose 14 month old sibling E died in unexplained circumstances whilst in C's care.  

  The local authority sought findings against C's mother and against C, who was the subject of the proceedings before the Court and in the interim care of the local authority seeking the findings against her.   C, 14 years old, suffered from situational mutism, social anxiety and post traumatic stress.

  Gwynneth Knowles J accepted the submissions made on behalf of C and concluded after a careful application of the Oxfordshire principles that there should not be a fact finding hearing:  it was not necessary or proportionate in circumstances where the threshold criteria were met and the additional findings sought were unlikely to change the assessment of risk or affect the outcome of the case.

  The Court concluded that the welfare of C weighed against a fact-finding hearing, that the medical evidence was unlikely to  establish a sole perpetrator finding; and that any benefits of making findings would be outweighed by the significant psychological and emotional harm which would be caused to C by the fact finding hearing.    The Court doubted that there could be a fair hearing in circumstances where it was accepted by all parties that the Court should not hear from C herself, and where C was capable (for emotional and psychological reasons) of giving meaningful instructions.   The Court concluded “The forensic benefit of any fact-finding enquiry strikes me not only as marginal but also as highly dubious given its potential effect on one of the children with whose welfare the court is ultimately concerned."

  C and D (Refusal to Hold Fact-Finding Hearing), Re - Find Case Law - The National Archives

• Re: QX (Parental Consent for Deprivation of liberty: Children under 16) [2025] EWHC 745 (Fam)

  Public Law, DoLS

  Represented a 15 year old child who was diagnosed as autistic with severe learning difficulties such that he required continuous care and support.   The issues in the case before HHJ Burrows sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, were (i) whether a care order was necessary where those who held parental responsibility exercised it appropriately and agreed to the child’s accommodation; and (ii) whether the holders of parental responsibility could consent to to an objective deprivation of liberty for a child who hasn’t reached the age of 16.

  Re: QX (Parental Consent for Deprivation of liberty: Children under 16) - Find Case Law - The National Archives

• Re R (A Minor) (Fact Finding) [2025] EWHC 1977 (Fam)

  Public Law

  Junior counsel for local authority in a care case before Hayden J in which there was a complex medical presentation which, unusually, the Court found resulted from a dual pathology: findings were made both of salt poisoning and inflicted head injury perpetrated by the mother.

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council v M & Ors - Find Case Law - The National Archives

• A Local Authority v B (unreported) [2024]

  Public law

  Represented a father accused of deliberately suffocating his baby.  Successfully challenged the complex medical evidence through cross examination of court appointed expert paediatrician, and the treating clinicians, so that the finding wasn’t made. 

• ED v MG [2025] EWHC 1876 (fam)

  Private Children

  Represented the mother before McKendrick J in on a declaration of parentage where the child was conceived following overseas fertility treatment (AI by donor) and on whether a person mistakenly named on the birth certificate as a father acquires parental responsibility as a result of the erroneous registration. Successfully argued that if you’re mistakenly registered as father you don’t ever acquire PR - under section 4(1) of the Children Act 1989 you have to be the actual father (genetic or legal) before you can get parental responsibility

  https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/1876?query=ED+MG+%5B2025%5D+EWHC+1876+%28fam%29

• A mother v a father [2024] unreported

  Private Children

  Successfully represented a mother on her application to terminate the father’s parental responsibility and for a no contact order where the father had been imprisoned for very serious sexual offences against their eldest daughter.

• Z v Z (Contact in Prison) [2021] EWFC 47

  Private Children

  Father seeking contact was in Prison. Governor said he would not facilitate contact, even if there was a Child Arrangements Order, as risk too high. MacDonald J considered whether the order was binding on the Governor and determined it was not, and that the Governor could not be compelled to facilitate a child arrangements order made by the Family Court. Represented children.

• A Borough Council v E & Ors (No.2) (Refusal of secure accommodation order) [2021] EWHC 2699 (Fam)

  Child Protection

  MacDonald J refused to make a SAO sought by the Local Authority even though the Secure Accommodation Review Panel did not consider the grounds were met. Represented Local Authority.

• D (a child) [2021] EWCA Civ 787

  Family

  Court of Appeal considered fair procedures for a contested interim removal hearing. Represented Local Authority (Leading Junior).

• Lancashire County Council v E & F [2020]EWHC 182 (fam)

  Child Protection

  Jehovah’s Witnesses resisted disclosure of records relating to a father accused of sexual abuse of his daughter on grounds of religious confidentiality/article 9 rights. Lieven J rejected the contention that the material was covered by a common law privilege against disclosing information obtained during confession or spiritual counselling and held that the Article 6 and 8 rights of the children outweighed the article 9 rights of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to respect for their religious practices. Represented children.

• Cumbria County Council v R (Special Guardianship Order or Interim Care Order) [2019] EWHC 2782 (Fam)

  Child Protection

  MacDonald J refused an application to reconsider uncertain perpetrator findings in respect of inflicted head injury based on a late confession or responsibility by the father, and in doing so considered the Court’s approach to demeanour. The judge resolved a dispute between the Local Authority and Guardian about whether placement with grandparents should be under a final care order or a SGO, by adjourning under an ICO for a period of testing out the placement. Represented Local Authority

• Rochdale Borough Council v M (Acting through the Official Solicitor ) & Ors [2018] EWFC 102

  Child Protection

  Fact finding hearing about death of a 17 month old boy who was suffocated. Hayden J considers approach when a party in the pool of perpetrators is represented by the OS. Represented Local Authority.

• Lancashire County Council v A, B & Z (A child: Fact Finding Hearing: Police Disclosure [2018] EWHC 1819 (Fam)

  Child Protection

  Knowles J gave a judgement about the appropriate procedures for obtaining police disclosure following issues in a fact finding hearing about the death of an 8 day old baby who sustained severe inflicted head injuries following a shake and impact. Represented child

• The Poppi Worthington Case

  Child Protection

  Cumbria County Council v M and F (Fact-Finding No. 1 : Unedited) [2014] EWHC 4886 (Fam)

  Cumbria County Council v M and F (Application for Rehearing) [2015] EWFC 35

  F V CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL AND M (FACT-FINDING NO. 2) [2016] EWHC 14 (fam)

  Re W (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 113

  Care proceedings resulting from the death of Poppi Worthington who died following a penetrative anal assault by her father. The ensuing police investigation was subject to considerable criticism. The initial findings were reopened and confirmed after additional evidence was obtained in the course of a second police investigation. The complex litigation attracted national publicity, and resulted in a number of judgments about publication of information concerning care proceedings. Represented Local Authority (Junior counsel)

• H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136

  Family

  Appeal against factual findings made by Newton J. Court of Appeal considered the application of Lucas Direction in family proceedings. Represented children.

• Cumbria County Council v Q (Injuries to Infant with Bone Disorder) [2015] EWFC 59 (08 July 2015)

  Child Protection

  Child sustained head injury and older fractures which were found by Peter Jackson J to result from a vitamin D deficiency. Represented Local authority.

  more

• V (A Child): Fact-Finding [2015] EWFC 14 (02 February 2015)

  Family

  Serious sexual abuse of a 2 ½ year old girl. Peter Jackson J approved local authority decision not to seek to identify a perpetrator. Represented local authority.

  more

• Blackpool Borough Council v A (A Child) (Rev 1) [2015] EWFC 9 (29 January 2015)

  Child Protection

  Death of a child who had sustained multiple injuries including fatal head injuries before Holman J. Represented mother.

  more

• Cumbria County Council v M & Ors [2014] EWFC 18

  Child Protection

  Complex care proceedings arising from the death of a child which was not recognised as potentially inflicted at the time, leading to a delay in the police investigation and care proceedings being issued. Represented Local Authority (Junior counsel)

• S (Children: care proceedings) [2014] EWFC 2

  Family

  High Court care proceedings involving litigant in person before Russell J. Represented Local Authority.

• A-W & C (Children) [2013] EWHC B41 (Fam)

  Child Protection

  Local Authority had acted in breach of the mother’s Article 6 and Article 8 rights in failing to issue proceedings for a care order promptly upon the child’s birth and instead awaiting the exercise by the police of their powers of protection to secure a removal. Represented child.

• S (Children: care proceedings) [2014] EWFC 2 (11 April 2014)

  Child Protection

  High Court care proceedings involving litigant in person before Russell J. Represented local authority.

  more

• J, A , M And X (Children) [2013] EWHC 4648 (Fam) (22 February 2013)

  Family

  Permission to withdraw care proceedings arising from a head injury to a child where an older sibling was a potential perpetrator. Cobb J considers circumstances in which permission to withdraw should be given where threshold may be crossed. Represented child.

  more