C (a Child), Re

In deciding whether a local authority should notify a father of his child’s birth, the child’s welfare is paramount. The court must consider the statutory welfare checklist, the relatives’ wishes and feelings, and the parties’ Article 8 rights.

A mother’s wish for confidential adoption carries significant, but not decisive, weight. Non-notification is exceptional, but no single magnetic factor is required. A combination of circumstances may suffice when assessed holistically, including the likely effects on the mother, child and wider family and the realistic prospects of care by the paternal family.

The local authority issued care proceedings concerning a six-month-old child whose 14-year-old mother wished her to be adopted and whose father was unaware of the birth. The proceedings were issued late and relied on a threshold of doubtful validity.

The court permitted their withdrawal and dismissal and directed an application under Part 19 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. The issue was whether the father should be informed of the birth, having regard to the child’s welfare, the mother’s confidentiality request, the parents’ rights and the paternal family’s potential role.

The care proceedings were withdrawn and dismissed. The local authority was directed not to inform the father of the child’s birth.

1. The court adopted the principles summarised in Re A [2018] EWHC 1981. Each case is fact-sensitive. The outcome sought is exceptional. The child’s welfare is paramount under section 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and the court must have regard to the welfare checklist and the wishes and feelings of the child’s relatives.
2. The mother’s wish for a confidential and discreet adoption arrangement must be respected and critically examined. It carries significant weight but is not decisive. Adoption engages Article 8 rights and must be necessary and proportionate. A high level of justification and thorough analysis are required. Analysis may be undertaken without the natural family’s knowledge where that is necessary or proportionate.
3. Exceptional circumstances do not require one magnetic factor. A combination of circumstances, none individually exceptional, may satisfy the test. The assessment must be holistic and include the realistic prospects of care by the paternal family. The fact that the mother could have avoided the issue by not naming the father was irrelevant, although its impact on her could be considered.
4. The mother’s very young age, psychological vulnerability, genuine fears of harm, the likely spread of information, probable educational and social consequences, and the impact on family stability justified non-notification. There was no realistic basis for treating the father or his parents as potential carers. Sufficient information remained available for future life-story work and a later-life letter.