B v C

Where a person holds parental responsibility under the law of another State, continuing under Art 16 of the 1996 Hague Convention, the court must consider whether notice of proceedings is necessary under FPR r. 12.4(2A).

Notice should generally be given where the proceedings concern whether that person’s parental responsibility can be removed. The person has a direct interest in the status and obligations imposed on them and an Art 6 right to a fair trial. Privacy concerns may be addressed by controlling the information disclosed and dispensing with service of particular documents. Any search for the person should be time limited and proportionate to the listing of the final hearing.

The applicant mother sought orders concerning parental responsibility for a child. The child’s biological father had fraudulently used the identity of D, whose parental responsibility was recognised under the law of the country in which the child was born and continued in England under Art 16 of the 1996 Hague Convention.

D’s whereabouts were unknown and he had not been given notice. The Secretary of State applied for an adjournment and raised whether D should be notified. The central issue was whether notice was necessary under FPR r. 12.4(2A), including in proceedings concerning the possible removal of D’s parental responsibility.

1. The adjournment application was granted. The final hearing was to be relisted, and steps were to be taken to locate D within a time limited by the date fixed for that hearing.

2. D fell within FPR r. 12.4(1) in relation to the application under s. 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989. He held parental responsibility under foreign law, that responsibility subsisting under Art 16 of the 1996 Hague Convention, and he was not otherwise required to be joined under FPR r. 12.3 by reason of holding parental responsibility.

3. The question under FPR r. 12.4(2A) was whether notice was necessary. In the proceedings concerning the inherent jurisdiction, where D might be required to be joined because he had an interest in the child, the practical question was broadly the same.

4. The authorities concerning notice to fathers without parental responsibility in adoption proceedings, and removal of a father with parental responsibility as a party, provided limited assistance because the present facts were materially different. D had an acute interest in proceedings directed to removing a legal status and obligations imposed on him through theft and fraud.

5. D also had an Art 6 right to a fair trial concerning whether his civil rights and obligations arising from parental responsibility should be removed. That conclusion did not depend on his having Art 8 rights in relation to the child.

6. The mother’s privacy interests did not justify dispensing with notice. The proceedings were primarily legal in nature, and the court could control the information supplied to D and make orders under FPR r. 6.36 dispensing with service of particular documents where appropriate.

7. It was necessary for D to receive notice. The court so directed and permitted agreed applications for disclosure orders to public agencies to assist in locating him.