X County Council v C

Where an unmarried father’s identity is unknown, the court may request information from the mother and explain why disclosure matters to the child. The court should not, however, seek to force or coerce disclosure where there is no effective and proportionate means of doing so. Cross-examination about intimate matters, or punishment for contempt, will generally be inappropriate where it is unlikely to produce reliable information and would be oppressive. The local authority’s consultation duties are qualified by what is reasonably practicable. Excluding an unmarried father without parental responsibility from the adoption process ordinarily requires strong countervailing or compelling reasons, assessed in the circumstances of each case and compatibly with article 8.

A child had been placed in the voluntary care of the local authority shortly after birth. The mother wished the child to be adopted and had concealed the pregnancy and birth. She provided insufficient information to identify or trace the father, who had no parental responsibility.

The local authority sought permission to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and orders dispensing with further attempts to identify or notify the father and paternal family. The court protected the mother’s wish for confidentiality as to the maternal family, but directed her to disclose information about the father. She maintained that she had no further information. The central issue was whether the court should compel or coerce further disclosure.

1. The court had jurisdiction to give the relief sought, either under the inherent jurisdiction or under rule 108 of the Family Proceedings (Adoption) Rules 2005.
2. The local authority’s duty under section 22(4) of the Children Act 1989 to consult a parent was qualified by the words “so far as is reasonably practicable”. In the circumstances, the duty to engage with the unidentified father was presently non-existent.
3. The statutory adoption scheme permitted placement and adoption without the consent of, and without notice to, a father without parental responsibility. The court nevertheless retained power to direct that such a father be joined. Where family life under article 8 was assumed, exclusion ordinarily required strong countervailing factors, very compelling reasons, or cogent and compelling grounds. Each case had to be decided on its own circumstances.
4. The court accepted that identifying the father could materially benefit the child, including by enabling consideration of family placement, contact, medical and inheritance information, and later life-story work. Those benefits justified requesting disclosure.
5. The court distinguished between the existence of a theoretical power to order disclosure and the propriety of exercising it. Although the powers of the inherent jurisdiction were theoretically broad, there was no effective mechanism by which an unwilling mother could be compelled to provide information she denied possessing.
6. Further cross-examination was likely to intrude into intensely personal matters without reliably producing information. Contempt proceedings would require proof beyond reasonable doubt and punishment would be inappropriate on the assumed facts. The process would be coercive and disproportionate. The court therefore accepted the mother’s position and declined to pursue the matter further.
7. The local authority was ordered not to take further steps to identify or notify the father or paternal family. The position could be reviewed if the mother later provided further information.

First-instance decision. The judgment itself does not state any prior appellate decision.