The father was convicted of murdering the mother and sentenced to life imprisonment. Orders were made, inter alia, placing the child with a special guardian. After a number of years, in circumstances where the child had made it clear that she did not want the father to have any information about her or be involved in any decision making on her welfare, the local authority applied for a care order together with (i) an order pursuant to section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989 for permission to refuse contact between the child and the father; (ii) a declaration under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court that the local authority be relieved of their duties under the 1989 Act to consult with or give the father notice in relation to any decisions relating to the child; and (iii) an order to discharge the father as a party to the applications for a care order and under section 34(4) of the 1989 Act.
On the ancillary applications—
Held, applications granted. After balancing all relevant considerations, the emotional and psychological harm that would occur to the child arising from her father’s participation in the proceedings was so grave that her right to privacy and family life under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms prevailed over any Convention right held by the father. Since the case was exceptional, and the outcome of the proceedings under section 34(4) of the Children Act 1989 was likely to be an order authorising the local authority to refuse contact with the father, it fell within that category where it was appropriate to discharge the father as a party to the care and section 34(4) applications. Further, the grounds set out in section 100(4) of the 1989 Act were made out such that it was right to permit the local authority to apply for the declaratory relief sought under the inherent jurisdiction and to grant a declaration that, save for the limited exception that the father was to be given information about any life-threatening medical emergency while the child was subject to a care order, the local authority be relieved of its duties to consult or notify the father of matters relating to the child’s welfare (paras 58, 59–60).
Practice guidance on applications to restrict disclosure and/or discharge a party in family proceedings (paras 12, 52–53, 55).
In the interests of maintaining anonymity the names of counsel for the local authority, the father, the child’s special guardian and the child, by the children’s guardian, have each been omitted.