A County Council v A Mother & Ors
[2023] EWFC 122 (B)
G (Notification of Father with Parental Responsibility), Re
28 February 2024
[2024] EWFC 173
Family Court
A mom tried to keep her abusive ex-husband out of court proceedings involving their daughter. Even though there was a history of violence and the daughter didn’t want him involved, the judge ruled the dad has a right to be heard, but only with limited information to protect the daughter.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concerning a 14-year-old girl, G.
- •Mother (M) applied to exclude father (F) from proceedings due to history of domestic abuse, allegations of sexual abuse, and G's wishes.
- •F has parental responsibility for G but has not been involved in her life for 10 years.
- •Allegations against F include domestic violence, threats, and sexual abuse of G's older sister.
- •G, deemed Gillick competent, strongly opposes F's involvement.
- •Local authority opposes the application, highlighting the potential for F to assist in identifying paternal family support.
Legal Principles
Court has discretion to dispense with service of documents or remove a party, but this should only be done in highly exceptional circumstances.
FPR Rule 6.36, Rule 12.3(3), In re AB (Care Proceedings: Service on Husband ignorant of Child’s existence) [2003] EWCA Civ 1842
Balancing of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for family life) rights of all parties.
ECHR, A local authority v M and F [2009] EWHC 3172 (Fam)
Starting point is full participation for a parent with parental responsibility; exclusion is a last resort.
A Local Authority v M and others [2020] EWHC 2741 (Fam), MacDonald J
Welfare of the child is an important consideration but not paramount in this context.
A Local Authority v M and others [2020] EWHC 2741 (Fam), MacDonald J
High bar for excluding a parent with parental responsibility from proceedings, even without the opportunity to be heard.
Various cases cited in the judgment
Outcomes
Mother's application to exclude father from proceedings was refused.
Court found that the exceptional circumstances required to exclude a parent with parental responsibility were not met. Fairness demanded that F be given the opportunity to make representations. The risks of harm could be managed through limited disclosure and procedural directions.
Father to be served with limited documents relating to his past life, allegations against him, lack of involvement with G, and reasons for opposing his involvement.
This allows him to argue for further involvement without compromising G's safety or retraumatizing M and other children. Mother excused from attendance at hearing regarding F's further involvement.