A Local Authority v Y & Anor (Notification of The Father and Relatives)

Applications to withhold notification of a child’s birth from a putative father or relatives require urgent, thorough and careful judicial scrutiny. The court must establish the facts, gather objective information, and balance the Article 8 rights and interests of the mother, child, father and relatives. The child’s welfare is important but is not paramount. Relevant considerations include parental responsibility, existing or potential family life, the substance of relationships, realistic family-placement options, risks arising from notification, cultural or religious factors, confidentiality, delay and any other relevant matter. Notification may be withheld where the evidence shows that it is unlikely to produce a realistic family placement, would expose the mother or others to serious harm, and would cause delay without corresponding benefit to the child.

The local authority applied under Family Procedure Rules 2010, Part 19, for a declaration that it was not required to notify X’s father or wider maternal and paternal family of X’s birth. X was five months old, had been relinquished by his mother at birth, and was living with foster carers. The father and paternal family were unaware of the birth. The mother and X, through his Children’s Guardian, supported the application.

The central issues were whether notification would serve any realistic prospect of family placement, how the competing Article 8 rights should be balanced, and whether notification would create unacceptable risks to the mother and delay decisions about X’s permanent care.

1. Application granted. A declaration was made that the local authority was not required to notify X’s father or the wider maternal and paternal family of X’s existence.
2. The court applied the framework in A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] EWCA Civ 41. Such applications require prompt listing, urgent attention, thorough investigation and a reasoned balancing exercise, even where the application is not opposed.
3. The father had no parental responsibility for X and was unaware of X’s existence. His prospective Article 8 rights had to be balanced with those of X and the mother. X’s right to know his birth family was also an important consideration, but the child’s welfare was not treated as paramount in this notification decision.
4. The evidence showed no realistic prospect that the father or wider family could provide safe and consistent care. The father’s history of abusive behaviour, mental-health difficulties and unreliable involvement with his other children created a real risk that notification would increase harm to the mother and the children living with her. The court considered that protective measures were unlikely to mitigate that risk.
5. Notification was also likely to cause considerable delay without a corresponding benefit for X. Delay risked the possibility of placement with one of his half-siblings in an adoptive placement. These considerations outweighed the benefits of notification. The mother’s child-focused decision, corroborated by third-party safeguarding evidence, and her agreement to support life-story work provided additional support for the order.
6. The court stressed the importance of high-quality life-story work so that X would later understand the circumstances of the decision and his family background.