C (A Child) v XYZ County Council & Anor

Section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 does not impose an absolute duty to identify or consult a newborn child’s father or extended family before adoption. Enquiries are required only where they serve the child’s welfare by genuinely furthering the timely identification of a suitable long-term carer.

The adoption welfare checklist creates no policy preference for the birth family. The court must assess the individual child’s interests, including potential family relationships, identity, the reliability of available information and the prejudice caused by delay. A father’s biological link alone does not automatically establish family life under article 8.

A young unmarried mother concealed her pregnancy and, immediately after giving birth, asked that her child be adopted. She declined to identify the father, with whom she had had a single sexual encounter, and opposed disclosure to either side of the extended family.

In care proceedings brought by the local authority, HHJ Taylor directed that the child’s existence and identity could be disclosed to the maternal family and, if identified, to the putative father and paternal family. He held that section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 compelled the authority to obtain as much information as possible about the extended family.

The mother appealed. The issues were whether section 1 imposed such a duty and, if it did not, how the discretion to authorise enquiries and disclosure should be exercised.

1. Appeal allowed. The judge misdirected himself by treating section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 as imposing an absolute duty to investigate and inform the birth family. Section 1(2) makes the child’s lifelong welfare paramount. The other provisions of section 1 operate subject to that overarching consideration.

2. The matters in section 1(4) must be considered, but the subsection neither prescribes the weight to be given to them nor creates machinery for obtaining information. Whether enquiries should be undertaken remains discretionary. Enquiries are required only where they promote the child’s welfare, despite the prejudice which section 1(3) attributes to delay. They must genuinely advance the prospect of finding a long-term carer and cannot be undertaken merely to enlarge the child’s future knowledge of her background.

3. Section 1 establishes no policy preference for placement within the birth family. Section 1(4)(f) nevertheless includes potential relationships with relatives who do not yet know of the child’s birth, including grandparents and a putative father. The court must evaluate each case individually and critically assess the mother’s information. Relevant considerations include the realistic prospects of a family placement, the child’s age and existing attachments, identity, cultural considerations and delay.

4. The special adoption regime governed the decision about long-term care. The local authority’s use of care proceedings under the Children Act 1989 did not give that regime priority or create a duty to consult the wider family. The appropriate course was an application for directions under the adoption legislation.

5. The putative father had no existing family life with the child for article 8 purposes. He had never lived with the mother, knew nothing of the child and had expressed no commitment to her. Preventing the creation of a possible future family life did not violate his Convention rights. Although the grandparents had family-life rights, non-disclosure based on the child’s welfare was compatible with article 8.

6. The grandparents’ offer of unspecified assistance and the intangible possibility that the father might care for the child did not justify further delay. The order was set aside. The local authority and guardian were directed neither to identify or inform the father nor to introduce the child to, or assess, the grandparents. The authority was to explain the appeal’s outcome to the maternal grandparents.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission and an extension of time were granted. The appeal was allowed, HHJ Taylor’s order was set aside, and directions preventing further enquiries or assessment were made: [2007] EWCA Civ 1206.

2. County Court: On 28 September 2007 HHJ Taylor authorised disclosure to the extended maternal family and, if identified, to the putative father and paternal family. He held that the local authority was obliged to obtain as much information as possible about the extended family.