X and Y (Children)

In exceptional circumstances, a parent’s procedural and family-life rights may be restricted where participation or disclosure would cause serious harm to children and a fair hearing can still be achieved. The court must balance the competing rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and impose no wider restriction than strictly necessary.

A local authority’s statutory duties to consult and inform a parent may likewise be limited by declarations under the inherent jurisdiction where the children are likely to suffer significant harm. Any restriction should remain subject to safeguards, including directions by the court and disclosure of information about a life-threatening medical emergency.

The local authority sought orders concerning the father’s participation in proceedings about revocation of the girls’ placement orders, contact under section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989, disclosure, future proceedings and consultation about the girls’ welfare.

The father had been convicted of serious physical and sexual offences against the girls and was serving a lengthy prison sentence. Both girls feared him and were assessed as likely to suffer significant emotional harm if he received information about them or became involved in decisions concerning them. The central issues were whether his party status and procedural rights should be restricted, and whether the local authority should be relieved from statutory consultation and notification duties.

1. Disclosure. The court restricted the father’s access to the proceedings papers, providing a redacted bundle sufficient to understand the case and make representations. Under Rules 4.1, 1.1 and 12.12 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, non-disclosure is exceptional and must be justified by strict necessity. The restriction must go no further than necessary to secure a fair hearing while protecting the girls’ Article 8 rights.
2. Convention rights. Articles 6 and 8 rights of the father and children were engaged. Article 3 was not engaged because the high threshold for inhuman or degrading treatment was not met. The girls’ privacy rights nevertheless outweighed the father’s competing procedural and family-life rights in the circumstances.
3. Party status. Although the father was an automatic respondent under Rules 12.3 and 14.3, his participation was discharged. His convictions, the prohibition on contact, the girls’ severe trauma and the evidence that his involvement would cause significant emotional harm made the circumstances exceptional. The decision was proportionate and consistent with the Convention.
4. Consultation and information. Sections 22 and 26 of the Children Act 1989 ordinarily required the local authority to ascertain the parent’s wishes and feelings and keep him informed. Permission was granted under section 100(4) to invoke the inherent jurisdiction because the statutory duties could not otherwise be displaced and there were reasonable grounds to believe that the girls would suffer significant harm.
5. Limits and safeguards. The father was excluded from consultation and information about the girls’ welfare, save that the local authority was to decide what information should be given about any life-threatening medical emergency. A prospective prohibition on all future notice was refused. Instead, the authority could withhold notice and documents pending a directions hearing at which the father’s role would be determined.