A & B v P Council

In an adoption application, a natural father with possible foreign parental responsibility is not automatically entitled to notice under English adoption law where the applicant does not believe that the foreign status exists for the purposes of rule 14.4 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. Even if the status exists, the court retains an inherent power to dispense with procedural requirements where necessary to achieve justice. Notice may be withheld only in exceptional circumstances. The court must assess any Article 8 family-life right, identify the nature and extent of feared harm, apply the real-possibility threshold, and balance the competing interests. Evidence of serious past violence, combined with the absence of any meaningful relationship, may justify non-notification.

The stepfather applied to adopt a nine-year-old child. The mother consented. The child’s birth father, a foreign national whose whereabouts were unknown, had had no meaningful contact with the child for many years. The parties disputed whether he had parental responsibility under Thai law and whether that status subsisted under the 1996 Hague Convention.

The central issue was whether the father had to be given notice of the adoption proceedings. The court also considered rule 14.4 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, the father’s possible Article 8 rights, the mother’s evidence of serious historic violence, and the local authority’s investigative obligations.

1. The court proceeded on the basis that the father did not hold parental responsibility for the purposes of English adoption law. Although parental responsibility existing under the law of a child’s former habitual residence may subsist under Article 16 of the 1996 Hague Convention, Article 4 excludes adoption and preparatory adoption measures from the Convention’s scope. Accordingly, any foreign parental responsibility did not make the father a parent with parental responsibility under section 52(6) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and his consent under section 47(2) was unnecessary.

2. Rule 14.4 imposed no mandatory notice requirement on the facts because the applicant did not believe that the father held foreign parental responsibility within the rule. That belief had a rational foundation in the evidence concerning Thai law, official certificates and the parties’ dealings with public authorities.

3. Even if rule 14.4 applied, the court retained an inherent jurisdiction to grant an exception where necessary to achieve justice. The court considered the principles in Re H and Re G, including the general practice of notifying natural fathers, and the guidance in Re AB and M v F that exception requires a highly exceptional case.

4. The father had no existing Article 8 family-life right with the child. The brief period of cohabitation and the birth-certificate entry were outweighed by his failure to maintain any meaningful relationship or show interest for approximately eight years. Consequently, Article 6 was not engaged.

5. Applying the real-possibility test from Re H (minors), there was a possibility that could not sensibly be ignored that notification would lead to threats or physical violence against the mother and her family. The mother’s evidence was credible and corroborated. That risk outweighed the general importance of notifying a natural father and justified withholding notice, even if he could be located.

6. The local authority was not required to make further enquiries about the father. Further expert evidence on Thai parental responsibility was unnecessary because it could not have altered the outcome and would have caused delay and expense. The adoption application was to proceed to determination on its merits.