A Local Authority v The Mother & Anor

In exceptionally rare circumstances, the court may dispense with identifying or notifying a putative father and extended family before adoption proceedings where doing so would bring no benefit to the child and the relevant family rights have been considered. The mother’s wishes, the absence of any psychological relationship with the child, and the speculative nature of any legal relationship may be important factors. The threshold is still higher for excluding the birth mother from notice of future adoption proceedings. A court should not make such an order prematurely where circumstances may change and the statutory notice requirements under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 continue to apply.

A local authority applied for care and placement orders concerning a very premature child whose mother consistently stated that she could not care for the child and wished the child to be adopted. The mother gave conflicting accounts of the father’s identity and feared serious harm from her family and community if the birth became known.

The local authority sought directions dispensing with further attempts to identify or locate the father and extended family, and with giving them notice of adoption proceedings. It also sought to exclude the mother from notice of future adoption proceedings unless she first contacted the local authority. The court considered the child’s welfare, the family members’ rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the statutory notice requirements.

1. Orders made. A care order and a placement order were made. The local authority and guardian were not required to take further steps to identify or locate the father or assess the extended maternal or putative paternal family, and those persons need not be given notice of adoption proceedings.
2. Although identification and notification of both genetic parents and consideration of wider family placements are normally required, the court may dispense with those requirements in very rare and exceptional circumstances. The child’s best interests were central. It was impossible to conceive of any benefit in further reliably identifying the father or notifying the wider family where the mother’s evidence indicated grave risk and a family placement was unrealistic.
3. The rights of the father and wider family under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had to be considered. There was no psychological relationship between the child and those family members, and any legal relationship with the father was speculative because his identity was uncertain.
4. The proposed order excluding the mother herself from notice of future adoption proceedings was refused. It went too far and conflicted with section 141 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the rules made under it. Excluding the birth mother was even more exceptional, particularly because adoption proceedings were not imminent and communication with her remained possible.
5. The care-order threshold was satisfied because the mother did not wish to care for the child or make herself available to do so, and without local-authority arrangements the child would not receive the necessary care and nurture. The conditions for a placement order were also satisfied, including the mother’s consent.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.