Judge rules father has no Article 6 right to lay advocate in family case

Family court judge shuts down bid to invoke Article 6 for non-contesting parent in care order hearing

A High Court judge has ruled that a father involved in care proceedings for his infant child is not entitled to a lay advocate under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), calling the legal submission on his behalf a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the right to a fair trial.

In Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Mother & Ors (Lay Advocates; Article 6), Mrs Justice Lieven addressed a claim made during a family court hearing involving a six-month-old child subject to a care order application. The father, legally represented and with prior access to a lay advocate, had instructed his counsel that he did not wish to maintain any relationship with the child, nor contest the local authority’s care plan.

Despite the father’s passive stance, his counsel, Miss Victoria Flowers, submitted that it was the father’s Article 6 right to have continued access to a lay advocate.

Justice Lieven dismissed this argument outright, stating that Article 6 did not apply in this context because there was “no dispute” being contested in the courtroom. “The father’s position is not contentious,” the judge said. “He is not seeking to assert any Article 8 right to family life or any other civil right because he is not disputing the making of the order.”

She continued, “Having a lay advocate cannot in any rational sense be said to be ‘indispensable’ for effective access to the court given that he is not seeking to assert a case in court.”

The judgment noted that the father had already received professional legal advice, supported by a lay advocate funded by the local authority, before deciding not to oppose the special guardianship order.

Justice Lieven clarified that while it was essential for parents to receive advice they understand when making decisions of such life-altering magnitude, this did not equate to an entitlement under Article 6 for ongoing lay advocate assistance once a decision had been made.

“This is an entirely different issue from whether there is an entitlement under Article 6 to a lay advocate once that decision has been properly made,” she said.

The case underscores the distinction between ensuring understanding through initial professional support and the legal threshold required for rights under the ECHR to be invoked during court proceedings.

The judgment is likely to resonate across family courts, where issues of representation and accessibility frequently arise, particularly among vulnerable parties. However, Justice Lieven’s ruling makes clear that the right to a fair trial under Article 6 must be grounded in the existence of an actual dispute—not simply a preference for additional support during proceedings.

The case continues to centre around a care order application brought by Walsall Council, involving multiple parties, all of whom were represented in court. No further challenge to the care plan is currently being pursued by the father.