20 Refugee Law Initiative Working Paper 76 from the face of the case.135 Two positive case examples present “litigation friends” as children’s representatives, but in one case the litigation friend was a parent136 and in the other it is not clear what role the litigation friend played.137 Therefore, most findings regarding special representatives required more reliance upon expert communication than the sample of cases. Whether special representatives would have made a difference in the outcomes of the sample cases cannot be predicted from the data. That said, several negative cases appear to lack neutral, dedicated protection for the litigant child, or such advocacy existed but was ignored by the courts. For example, in K.A. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal,138 K.A.’s “Next Friend” and representative was her father, whose credibility had been rejected by the lower tribunal. There was no mention of any other guardian ad litem in the court’s decision for K.A., who held no nationality. The court stated that because K.A. was an infant, “the substantive claims made on her behalf relate to the experiences of her parents.”139 It thus followed for the tribunal that if the “parents’ claims are determined to be without substance, it necessarily follows that this was a matter to which the tribunal would have [to] regard as a matter of logic and commonsense.”140 Further, the only discussion of best interests was to say that “the grounds do not identify with any degree of precision what aspects of the child’s best interests were not considered by the tribunal” and how that affected the related refugee determination proceedings.141 There was no discussion of the effects of potential statelessness for the child. In this case of K.A., even though this child was the sole litigant, the court did not consider the child separately from her parents, who had “a considerable history in the asylum/immigration process” and seemingly without credibility in the eyes of the judge.142 This lack of separation arguably led to an infant remaining stateless. If someone had been dedicated to acting in the child’s best interests in addition to the attorney, perhaps stronger arguments could have been communicated on K.A.’s behalf regarding the child’s best interests, or the issue of statelessness and its specific dangers to children would have been better understood by the court and thus discussed. Although the court listed the matter on the next term’s docket, acknowledging that “great care should be taken to ensure” the child’s case is heard, this research could not locate any subsequent records of any further hearings or judgments on the matter.143 Conversely, in another judgment with analogous facts from Ireland eight years after K.A., the Supreme Court held in favor of a sole child litigant whose case was tied to a father who lost his refugee status as a result of fraudulent behavior, threatening the ability of his child to obtain Irish citizenship.144 This positive outcome came without mention of a special representative beyond the child’s attorney or “Next Friend” father, and without specific references to the child’s best interests. In this case, the court relied primarily upon Irish law to support its decision, without reference to Statelessness Conventions or the CRC. Beyond the differences between judges and specific legal arguments of this case and K.A., it is difficult to pinpoint additional factors that might justify why one child was left stateless and the other succeeded in his claims despite the connections with the fathers. Similar to the findings involving third parties above, these differences point to the unpredictable nature of litigation and the abstract nature of an appeal. Perhaps an outcome would not be improved automatically by a dedicated special representative beyond the attorney. A court is expected to be bound by the laws of the state and/or international agreement regardless of the presence or absence of guardian figures. There are ethical guidelines encapsulated in those laws “you must respect always when you are working with children in whatever position.”145 As championed in the Literature Review and by experts, these mandates include the right to be heard which seems better enabled by guardians. One area of litigation in which these special representatives play a significant role to empower that right is found within family courts. 135 Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:7638 (2019) Netherlands Court of the Hague. 136 The Queen on the application of MK, IK (a child by his litigation friend MK) and HK (a child by her litigation friend MK) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, JR/2471/2016 (2016) UK Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber. 137 MK (India) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. Case No., CO/4812/2016, (2017) EWHC 1365 (Admin) (2017) UK High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division. 138 K.A. (n 84). 139 ibid, para 23. 140 ibid. 141 ibid. 142 ibid, para 5. 143 ibid, para 24. 144 U.M. v. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade & Others (2022) IESC 25. 145 CRC Chair (n 73); see, e.g., CRC (n 40) arts 2, 3, 6, 12.