S (A Child), Re

S (A Child), Re

The judge erred in law by requiring the father to show an arguable case and to justify joinder, failed to properly consider his Article 6 and 8 rights, and did not consider whether case management could mitigate any harm. The correct approach is a presumption in favour of joinder unless there is a justifiable reason...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Subject Child: S (A Child); Appellant: Biological Father; First Respondent: Local Authority; Second Respondent: Mother; Third Respondent: Children’s Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal Against Refusal of Joinder in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Parental Responsibility, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Care Proceedings, Case Management
Family Law Child Law Civil Procedure Joinder of Parties Parental Responsibility Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Care Proceedings +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S (A Child)

Subject Child

Biological Father

Appellant

Local Authority

First Respondent

Mother

Second Respondent

Children’s Guardian

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings) / Appeal Against Refusal of Joinder in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge applied the correct legal test for joinder of a biological father without parental responsibility in care proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred by requiring the father to show an arguable case or justify joinder
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider the father's Article 6 and 8 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by requiring the father to show an arguable case and to justify joinder, failed to properly consider his Article 6 and 8 rights, and did not consider whether case management could mitigate any harm. The correct approach is a presumption in favour of joinder unless there is a justifiable reason to refuse, and no such reason was established on the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Father joined as a party to the care proceedings
  • Issues of disclosure and participation remitted to the Family Court for determination