Re S (Children: Party Status)

Re S (Children: Party Status)

The refusal to join Mr B as a party was wrong because the recorder could not legitimately determine that any application by Mr B would inevitably fail. Mr B had an unusually strong connection with the child, was previously an approved carer, and removal occurred without due process. The court should have found he had an arguable case sufficient for joinder, and procedural fairness required his participation.

Parties
Appellant: Mr B; Respondent Local Authority: Lincolnshire County Council; Respondent Mother: Mother; Respondent Children: Children (by their Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family/care Proceedings) / Appeal Against Refusal of Party Status in Care Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Mr B joined as a party to the care proceedings.
Legal Topics
Party Status in Care Proceedings, Special Guardianship, Section 10(9) Children Act 1989, Procedural Fairness, Joinder of Parties
Family Law Child Law Party Status in Care Proceedings Special Guardianship Section 10(9) Children Act 1989 Procedural Fairness Joinder of Parties

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr B

Appellant

Lincolnshire County Council

Respondent Local Authority

Mother

Respondent Mother

Children (by their Children’s Guardian)

Respondent Children

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family/care Proceedings) / Appeal Against Refusal of Party Status in Care Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to join Mr B as a party to care proceedings was wrong
  2. 2 Whether Mr B had an arguable case to be joined as a party
  3. 3 Whether the process leading to C's removal from Mr B's care was fair

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to join Mr B as a party was wrong because the recorder could not legitimately determine that any application by Mr B would inevitably fail. Mr B had an unusually strong connection with the child, was previously an approved carer, and removal occurred without due process. The court should have found he had an arguable case sufficient for joinder, and procedural fairness required his participation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Mr B joined as a party to the care proceedings.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • Mr B is joined as party to the care proceedings as the Fifth Respondent.