CB, Re

In an application concerning confidentiality in adoption proceedings, the court must identify and respectfully scrutinise the relevant facts, obtain information where possible, and weigh the competing private and family-life rights under Article 8. The child’s welfare is a relevant consideration, but it is not paramount in this balancing exercise. A mother’s account should not be rejected wholesale merely because the court doubts part of it; lies may arise from fear, shame, panic or distress. Where disclosure to wider family members would bring little realistic benefit to the child, cause substantial harm to an established family unit, and create further delay, the court may direct that notification should not take place.

A local authority applied for declarations enabling the adoption process for CB, a ten-month-old girl, to proceed without notifying her wider maternal family. CB’s mother, MB, was the only person with parental responsibility and consented to adoption. Her husband, HB, denied paternity, which was confirmed by DNA testing, and his consent was therefore unnecessary.

The application arose because MB wished to preserve confidentiality concerning CB’s birth and existence. The local authority and Children’s Guardian ultimately supported that course. The central issue was whether the wider family should be notified so that they could express views or offer to care for CB, notwithstanding the likely impact on MB, HB and their two older children.

1. The application was granted. The court declared that HB was not CB’s father, that his consent was unnecessary, and that MB was the only parent with parental responsibility. The court also confirmed MB’s consents under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
2. Following the approach in Re A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] 1 FLR 1157, the court identified the relevant facts, scrutinised MB’s account, and weighed the competing interests. The child’s welfare was relevant but was not paramount.
3. The court accepted that CB might benefit in later life from information about her biological father, but held that there was no sufficient reason to treat MB differently from other mothers whose children do not know their biological father. Further investigation into the private circumstances of conception would unjustifiably interfere with MB’s Article 8 rights.
4. Applying the principle in R v Lucas [1981] 1 QB 720, doubt about one part of MB’s account did not justify rejecting the remainder. The court had to allow for possible reasons for untruthfulness, including fear, shame, embarrassment and distress.
5. The Article 8 rights of MB, HB and their two children outweighed those of the wider maternal family. The wider family had no existing relationship with CB, was unlikely to be able to care for her, and notification would cause distress and further delay. Delay was prejudicial to CB’s welfare, and extending the litigation risked damaging the established family unit.
6. The local authority adoption agency was directed not to notify wider family members of CB’s birth or existence. No party was permitted to notify another individual against MB’s wishes.