M (A Child: Intermediaries), Re

M (A Child: Intermediaries), Re

The judge erred by overlaying the necessity test with concepts of rarity and failing to properly consider the mother's vulnerabilities and the evidence, resulting in procedural unfairness. The necessity test under Part 3A FPR required intermediary assistance for the mother to ensure a fair hearing.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mother; Respondent: Local Authority; Respondent: Father; Respondent: Uncle; Respondent: Child; Respondent: Grandmother; Intervener: Association of Lawyers for Children; Intervener: Family Law Bar Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Family Court Refusing Intermediary Assistance in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order refusing intermediary assistance set aside.
Legal Topics
Vulnerable Parties, Intermediaries, Fair Hearing, Participation Directions, Care Proceedings, Disability Accommodations
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Vulnerable Parties Intermediaries Fair Hearing Participation Directions 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Appellant

Local Authority

Respondent

Father

Respondent

Uncle

Respondent

Child

Respondent

Grandmother

Respondent

Association of Lawyers for Children

Intervener

Family Law Bar Association

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Family Court Refusing Intermediary Assistance in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to appoint an intermediary for a vulnerable parent in care proceedings was correct
  2. 2 Proper application of the necessity test for intermediary appointments under Part 3A FPR
  3. 3 Impact of vulnerability on fair participation and evidence in family proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by overlaying the necessity test with concepts of rarity and failing to properly consider the mother's vulnerabilities and the evidence, resulting in procedural unfairness. The necessity test under Part 3A FPR required intermediary assistance for the mother to ensure a fair hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order refusing intermediary assistance set aside.

Orders

  • An intermediary is appointed for the appellant mother for all further case management hearings, the fact-finding hearing (including delivery of judgment), and legal conferences at court.
  • Costs of intermediary to be borne by HMCTS.