B (A Child), Re

On an application by a prospective family carer to join care proceedings, the court should have regard to the factors in section 10(9) of the Children Act 1989 and all other material circumstances. Section 10(9) supplies neither a test nor exhaustive criteria.

The proposed substantive application must be arguable, but that alone does not require joinder or leave. Its merits must be balanced against factors including the child’s needs, the local authority’s plans and the risk of harmful disruption through delay. A grandparent’s proposal requires careful examination, but there is no automatic entitlement to party status, further assessment or a full evidential hearing.

A grandmother appealed against Judge Raeside’s refusal at Brighton County Court to join her as a party to care proceedings concerning her four-year-old grandson. She wished ultimately to seek his placement with her. Two local authority reports identified serious concerns about alcohol misuse, violence, family relationships, honesty and protective capacity. They concluded that psychological, alcohol and further social work assessments would be required before her suitability could be determined.

The grandmother argued that the reports were inconclusive rather than negative, that a family placement had not been investigated adequately, and that the judge had imposed an excessively demanding merits threshold. The central issues were the proper approach to joinder where a prospective party seeks an outcome capable of being pursued by a section 8 order, and whether the judge had permissibly balanced the arguability of the proposal against the child’s welfare-related circumstances and delay.

1. Appeal dismissed. Although the grandmother’s application was formally for joinder rather than leave to seek a section 8 order, the judge correctly had regard to section 10(9) of the Children Act 1989. There is no specific statutory or procedural guidance governing such joinder. It is logical to consider what legitimate application or role would follow if joinder were granted.

2. Section 10(9) does not prescribe a test or exhaustive conditions. It highlights matters requiring particular regard while leaving the court free to consider every material feature. The merits of the proposed substantive application are relevant. A proposed application must be arguable, but the court should not substitute a requirement for a “good arguable case” for Parliament’s discretionary framework. Even an arguable case may be outweighed by other factors.

3. Proposals by grandparents must be examined carefully because a placement within the family may greatly benefit a child. The statement in Re J (Leave to Issue Application for Residence Order) [2003] 1 FLR 114 that such opportunities should not be dismissed without full inquiry is context-sensitive. Investigation may range from a full hearing with reports and oral evidence to a careful but limited local authority examination. There is no automatic entitlement to joinder, leave, assessment or a full evidential hearing.

4. The court has a broad discretion to determine an application at an early stage, including on submissions alone. It need not resolve every disputed allegation where the decision can properly rest on sufficient undisputed material. Delay associated with the proposed application is capable of disrupting the child’s life and causing harm within section 10(9)(c).

5. The judge was entitled to regard the assessments as negative, notwithstanding their recommendation that further work would be needed before a final conclusion could be reached. The undisputed history disclosed substantial concerns, while the child urgently required a stable and settled placement. Psychological assessment, further social work, work on deeply acrimonious family relationships and resolution of material factual disputes would take significant time. The judge properly balanced the importance of a possible family placement, the grandmother’s human rights and the untested nature of some allegations against the slim prospects of success and the risk of harmful delay.

Laws LJ agreed entirely with Black LJ.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The grandmother’s appeal was dismissed. The county court judge had applied the correct approach and reached a conclusion open to her.
2. Brighton County Court: Judge Raeside refused the grandmother’s application to become a party to the care proceedings on 26 March 2012.
3. Family Proceedings Court: In earlier private law proceedings, the grandmother had been granted leave to apply for contact and residence. That grant was relevant but did not bind the county court in the care proceedings.