BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL v MOTHER & Ors

In care proceedings, the court should confine fact-finding and threshold allegations to matters necessary to determine the children’s future welfare and the orders sought. A local authority is not required to plead every allegation made against third parties or call evidence on every such allegation. Where allegations against children are not pursued and no findings are sought against them, they do not automatically require intervenor status. The court may adopt a proportionate procedure to clarify their position, such as an interview by an independent social worker or solicitor, leaving the trial judge to assess the evidential weight.

This was a case management ruling in care proceedings concerning a family of children. Allegations of sexual abuse had been made by MG against her brothers, and separately against two other children, X and Y. The local authority did not seek findings concerning X and Y and did not intend to amend its threshold. The issue was whether the allegations concerning X and Y required them to be joined as intervenors, or whether a more limited process would fairly enable the court to assess the evidence while preserving the listed fact-finding hearing.

1. The court’s case management powers under rule 1.1 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 require the case to be dealt with justly, fairly, expeditiously and proportionately, having regard to welfare, equality of arms, expense and the proper allocation of resources. In a case management decision, welfare was an important consideration but was not paramount.
2. The allegations against X and Y need not be pleaded in the local authority’s threshold. The local authority was not seeking to prove them, and determining them was unnecessary for the welfare decisions required. The court should focus on findings strictly necessary for the final orders and should avoid expanding proceedings into a general inquiry into every related allegation.
3. BB (Children) [2021] EWFC 20 did not establish a legal requirement for a local authority to include every allegation in its threshold or call evidence on every point. The approach remained fact-sensitive and proportionate.
4. X and Y did not need to be made intervenors. No findings were sought against them, and there was no established rule that persons against whom a child makes allegations must necessarily be joined. Their positions nevertheless needed to be clarified so that MG could be questioned meaningfully and the parties could understand the evidential context.
5. The proportionate course was to appoint an experienced solicitor or independent social worker to interview X promptly, with questions agreed by the parties. The trial judge would determine what weight to give the resulting material and any response from MG. The October fact-finding hearing was preserved.

First-instance case management ruling. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.