A motion was brought by C. M. to be added as a respondent to a custody application brought by the paternal grandmother against the child's parents.
The moving party sought party status following the release of a child psychiatrist's report containing allegations of sexual abuse by the moving party.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party was not a necessary party to the proceeding.
The court held that the dispute between the applicant and respondents could be adjudicated without the moving party as a party, and that any relevant evidence could be presented through witness testimony.
The court emphasized that adding a party solely to protect reputation and not to claim substantive relief would divert focus from the paramount consideration of the best interests of the child.
