A Local Authority v M & Ors

In an adoption relinquishment case, notification of the child’s extended family requires a fair balance between the competing interests. The child’s welfare is important but is not paramount. Parental wishes for confidentiality attract significant weight, but must be critically examined and cannot be accepted at face value.

The court should obtain an objective view of whether a family placement is a realistic alternative, consider the Article 8 rights and relationships of relatives, and assess the likely impact and durability of confidentiality. Notification should generally be permitted unless compelling reasons justify withholding it. Delay is relevant but will not usually predominate, particularly where the child’s placement remains secure.

The local authority sought permission to notify D’s extended family of his birth. D’s unmarried parents, who shared parental responsibility and remained in a stable relationship, wished to relinquish him for adoption and opposed notification. D had been placed with prospective adopters under a foster-to-adopt arrangement shortly after birth.

The children’s guardian supported the parents’ position, principally because of the possible emotional harm and disruption arising from notification. The central issue was whether the parents’ request for confidentiality outweighed the interests of D and his relatives, including the possibility of a family placement.

1. Application granted. The local authority was permitted to notify the identified members of D’s extended family so that they could consider whether to seek assessment as potential carers.
2. The principles in Cases A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] EWCA Civ 41 were applied. The decision required a fair balance between the interests involved. D’s welfare was an important factor, but it was not the paramount consideration. The parents’ Article 8 rights were engaged, and their shared wishes were given significant weight, but those wishes were not determinative.
3. The parents’ account had to be investigated sufficiently to allow broad conclusions about the relative weight of the relevant factors. The court was not satisfied that the asserted estrangements from the extended family were as complete or longstanding as suggested. The evidence did not establish compelling reasons for withholding notification.
4. The possibility of a family placement had to be assessed objectively and could not be excluded merely because D was settled with apparently excellent early-permanence carers. A family placement might be unlikely, but it was not shown to be unrealistic or not worth investigating.
5. The court considered the impact on D’s half-brothers, J and T, who were unaware of his existence. Their potential family relationship with D, and the likelihood that secrecy would eventually fail through family communication or life-story work, weighed strongly in favour of notification. Any resulting difficult conversations were not sufficient to justify confidentiality.
6. Delay was relevant but not predominant. The foster carers had confirmed that they would continue caring for D if the notification process delayed the adoption proceedings. The parents were therefore given 42 days to inform the relevant family members themselves, after which the local authority could begin notification.