YV (No1) (Adoption; Notification of Relatives; Kazakhstan), Re

When deciding whether relatives should be notified of a proposed adoption, the court must identify and balance all relevant interests. The child’s welfare is important but is not the paramount consideration in this particular exercise. The mother’s or parents’ wish for confidentiality is important but not absolute.

Relevant matters include parental responsibility, Article 8 rights, the substance of family relationships, the realistic prospect of a family placement, the impact of notification, cultural and religious factors, the durability of confidentiality and delay. Notification is generally appropriate and withholding it is exceptional, but exceptionality is not a separate test. The decision must reflect the individual facts and be reached urgently and thoroughly.

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets sought directions under the inherent jurisdiction concerning whether the maternal and paternal relatives of an eleven-month-old child should be notified of the child’s birth before adoption proceedings progressed.

The child’s parents, both Kazakh nationals, supported adoption but opposed notification of their extended families. They had not engaged with the proceedings despite attempts at service. The local authority and Children’s Guardian considered that relatives might provide an alternative family placement and that the available evidence did not establish a real risk of harm from notification.

The central issues were whether notification should be dispensed with and whether the Kazakh authorities should be informed of the proposed arrangements.

1. Notification of relatives. Applying the framework in Re A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] EWCA (Civ) 41, the court held that notification should not be dispensed with. The court must investigate the facts as far as possible and strike a fair balance between the competing interests. The child’s welfare is important, but the welfare principle is not paramount in this decision.
2. The child’s Article 8 rights supported exploring whether an extended-family member could provide care. The evidence showed that the families could probably be traced, while the information supplied by the parents about their relatives’ suitability was incomplete and potentially inaccurate. The possibility of a maternal or paternal family placement was therefore a realistic matter requiring investigation.
3. The evidence did not establish a real risk of harm to the parents from notification. Cultural and religious considerations were relevant, but the circumstances did not indicate the severe consequences identified in the authorities. Any likely impact appeared closer to short-term difficulty or embarrassment. The child’s age and the existing delay made an expeditious process important, but did not justify abandoning the family-placement option.
4. The court declared that the extended family should be notified, giving the parents an opportunity to tell them first. The Kazakh authorities should also be notified and given an opportunity to make representations concerning the proposed arrangements. The matter was listed for a further hearing on 3 June, with judicial continuity to be sought.

First-instance decision under the inherent jurisdiction. The judgment records an earlier directions hearing before HHJ Hilder sitting as a Deputy High Court judge on 24 February 2025, but no separate appealed decision is identified.