S (A Minor : Care: Consultation With Parents Not In Child's Best Interests)

A parent will ordinarily be involved in, or informed about, decisions concerning a child in care. That principle is subject to exceptional circumstances. The court may remove a parent as a party and declare that a local authority need not consult or inform that parent where the child’s welfare and best interests require it, and the child might otherwise suffer significant harm. The court must balance the parent’s participation and family-life rights against the child’s privacy, family-life and welfare interests. A mature, articulate and consistent child’s wishes may be decisive, particularly where the parent has seriously harmed the child and the proposed decisions concern the ordinary details of care rather than adoption or another major change. Any relief should be proportionate and may preserve limited annual or emergency information.

S was nearly thirteen and was living under interim care orders following disclosures that her father had raped and indecently assaulted her. He had been convicted and imprisoned. The local authority, the guardian and the mother sought his removal as a party and declarations relieving the local authority from its usual duties to consult and inform him about S’s progress and care. The father opposed the applications, offering undertakings not to contact S or misuse information, but wished to remain involved and informed.

The central issues were whether the court had power to grant the declarations, whether leave was required under the inherent jurisdiction, and whether the relief was in S’s best interests.

1. Power and leave. The court had power under the procedural rules to remove the father as a party. It also had inherent jurisdiction to grant the declarations sought. Leave was required because the application was made under the inherent jurisdiction, and was granted because, without the application, S might suffer significant emotional and psychological harm.
2. Statutory framework. Sections 22 and 26 of the Children Act 1989 ordinarily required the local authority to ascertain and seek the views of the child and her parents, which necessarily involved informing the parent. Section 84 provided an enforcement mechanism for non-compliance without reasonable excuse. Following Re P [2000] 2 FLR 910, the court could give declaratory guidance in an appropriate case.
3. Balancing rights and welfare. Parental participation and family-life rights were important, but not absolute. The child’s welfare was paramount under section 1. The court had to balance the father’s rights against S’s privacy and family-life rights. The relief was exceptional, but the facts were exceptional: S’s wishes were intelligent, articulate, rational, consistent and objectively understandable; the father had been convicted of grave sexual offences against her; and her mother and guardian could protect her interests.
4. Scope of relief. The court rejected the father’s proposed undertakings as insufficient. He had forfeited meaningful participation in decisions about S’s future. He was removed from the proceedings and the declaration was granted, subject to a one-page annual report about S’s general well-being and progress. Further information was limited to a life-threatening medical emergency or a significant proposed alteration of the care plan, such as adoption. Any future initiative concerning contact had to come from S.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate history was stated in the judgment.