D (Adoption: Notification of Husband and Relatives), Re

When deciding whether a father or relative should be told of a proposed adoption, the court must establish the facts and strike a fair balance between all relevant interests. The mother’s confidentiality and private-life rights are important but not absolute. The child’s welfare is an important factor, but the decision is not governed by the paramountcy principle in Children Act 1989 or Adoption and Children Act 2002. Notification will ordinarily be appropriate, but confidentiality may be maintained where the individual circumstances justify it. Relevant considerations include parental responsibility, existing or potential family life, the substance of relationships, realistic family placement, the impact of notification, cultural and religious factors, confidentiality, delay and any other relevant matter. Exceptionality describes the usual balance; it is not a separate test.

A local authority sought directions under the inherent jurisdiction and FPR 14.21 concerning notification of D’s husband, the husband’s family, and the mother’s relatives. D’s mother, who supported adoption, had not told them of the birth or intended adoption. The biological father was unknown. D’s husband was not the biological father but was married to the mother when D was born. The issue was whether, applying the framework in Re A, B & C [2020] EWCA Civ 41, the court should permit the local authority not to notify those individuals.

1. Permission granted. The local authority was permitted not to notify D’s husband and his wider family, the mother’s parents and siblings, the wider maternal family, or the unknown biological father.
2. The governing approach was that in Re A, B & C [2020] EWCA Civ 41. The court must investigate the facts as far as confidentiality permits, identify all relevant interests, and strike a fair balance. The mother’s Article 8 private-life rights are engaged, but the significance of adoption and the interests of the child and other relatives may justify overriding confidentiality.
3. The court considered parental responsibility, Article 8 rights, the substance of the relationships, the prospect of a realistic family placement, the physical, psychological and social impact of notification, cultural and religious factors, the availability and durability of confidential information, delay, and any other relevant matter. The list is not closed. The child’s welfare is important but is not paramount in this notification decision.
4. The mother’s husband automatically had parental responsibility because D was born during the marriage under section 2(1) of the Children Act 1989, despite not being the biological father. His position therefore had to be resolved before any final adoption order, either by a declaration of non-parentage under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 or by dispensing with his consent under section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
5. On the facts, there was no existing family life between D and the proposed notified individuals, although potential family life existed. The evidence established severe risks of rejection, divorce, ostracism, psychological harm and family breakdown. No realistic family placement was identified, confidentiality was likely to endure, and notification would delay permanency. Those factors justified maintaining confidentiality.
6. Re J (Loss of Parental Responsibility) [2026] EWCA Civ 344 and P v Q and F [2024] EWCA Civ 878 did not alter the analysis concerning the husband’s parental responsibility.

There was no order as to costs, apart from assessment of publicly funded costs.

This was a first-instance decision of the High Court (Family Division). The local authority issued a Part 19 application on 6 January 2026 and a C66 application on 2 March 2026. Directions were given on 5 February 2026, followed by the final hearing on 22 April 2026.