A (Notification of Father and other Family Members), Re

Notification of a putative father and other relatives in public law proceedings is ordinarily appropriate, but confidentiality may be maintained in an exceptional case. The decision is not formally governed by the paramountcy provisions of the Children Act 1989 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The court must establish the facts and strike a fair balance between the mother’s privacy, the father’s and relatives’ interests, the child’s welfare, potential family placement, and the physical, psychological and social consequences of notification. Credible risks of honour-based violence, domestic abuse, cultural or religious pressure and maternal vulnerability may justify withholding notification. Exceptionality is not a separate test or shortcut.

Public law care proceedings concerned a child accommodated with the mother under an interim care order. The putative father lacked parental responsibility and was unaware of the child’s birth. The mother alleged serious risks of violence from the father and maternal grandfather, including honour-based violence, supported by evidence from the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt. She sought dispensation with service of Form C6A under Practice Direction 12C, paragraph 3.2, and an order under the inherent jurisdiction preventing disclosure to other relatives.

The local authority and children’s guardian opposed the applications, relying on the father’s interest in participating, possible family support and professional evidence that risks could be managed. The central issue was whether the benefits of notification outweighed the risks to the mother and others.

1. Orders granted. The court dispensed with service of Form C6A on the putative father and made an order under the inherent jurisdiction preventing notification of other relatives.

2. Applicable approach. The court followed the framework in In Re A and others. Notification will ordinarily be appropriate, especially where parental responsibility or family life exists, but each case depends on its facts. The court must investigate the evidence with care and then strike a fair balance. The child’s welfare is central but is not the paramount consideration, and the decision is not formally governed by section 1 of the Children Act 1989 or section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

3. Risk assessment. The court, rather than the independent social worker, had primary responsibility for the balancing exercise. The mother’s account was supported by other family evidence and had to be assessed in light of her extremely low cognitive functioning. The maternal grandfather’s threats, violence, alcohol misuse, cultural and religious beliefs and susceptibility to family pressure created a direct and real risk of honour-based violence. The father’s serious violent criminality, possession of a knife, conduct involving intimate images and hostility to the pregnancy created a separate real risk, including that he would inform the maternal grandfather.

4. Balancing factors. There was no established or potential family life between the father and child, no parental responsibility and limited realistic family-placement benefit from notification. Although confidentiality might not endure and delayed notification could cause difficulty, those considerations did not outweigh the real risks of physical and psychological harm, particularly given the mother’s vulnerability and the possible effect on ongoing parenting assessments.

5. Conclusion. This was one of the exceptional cases in which existing confidentiality should be maintained. Exceptionality is a consequence of the balance ordinarily favouring notification, rather than a separate legal test.