https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2023/17.htmlIMPORTANT NOTICE This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child[ren] and members of their [or his/her] family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EWFC 17
In the Family Court sitting at Oxford
Re.: M
Date of judgment: 1 February 2023
Before:
HHJ Vincent
sitting as a s9 Deputy High Court Judge
Between:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A local authority
Applicant
and
C (M’s birth mother)
Respondent
and
M
(acting by his Children’s Guardian, Leeanda Morreale)
Second Respondent
and
The prospective adopters
Intervenors
Lorna Meyer KC and Heather Popley, instructed by the Applicant local authority
Nicholas Goodwin KC and Chloe Wilkins, instructed by Jackson West solicitors for the Respondent
Oliver Wraight, instructed by Reeds solicitors for the Second Respondent child
Emma Griffiths, instructed by BH&O LLP, solicitors for the intervenors
Hearing dates: 17, 19 January and 1 February 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
HHJ Vincent:
Introduction
1. M is a happy, healthy boy of twenty months old. He was placed in the care of the prospective adopters when he was a day old. They have devoted themselves to him since the day he came to live with them, giving him loving, consistent, attentive care. He is thriving. They love him, and long for his place in their family to be secured by an adoption order.
2. M’s mother C was twenty-one when she gave birth to him. At the time she was not in a relationship with the birth father. She had discovered her pregnancy at thirty-one weeks. Placing M with the prospective adopters was an incredibly difficult and painful decision to make, but was made because she believed this was best for M.
3. C did not wish the birth father to know of the pregnancy, of M’s birth, or to have any say in the decisions she made for M.
4. C says she was supported in her decision not to tell the birth father about M by social workers, who told her that the decision was hers to make, she did not have to disclose the birth father’s identity, and her wish for confidentiality would be respected.
5. If this is what C was told, it misrepresents the law. Both domestic and European law in this area stress the importance of engagement of the wider family in the adoption process. Any request for an adoption that excludes a father or close family members should be closely scrutinised. The local authority could not compel C to disclose the birth father’s identity, but, did have a duty both to critically analyse C’s reasons for refusing to disclose, and if considered appropriate, to make its own independent enquiries as to the birth father’s identity.
6. The case notes suggest that some social workers were trying to get a more nuanced view across, but there were also a number of times that C received an assurance that she had an absolute right to withhold this information:
- On 10 March 2021 it is noted that C was advised that she would, ‘be fully in charge of any/all decision making throughout’ … ‘C is clear that she is aware of her rights and is aware of the adoption process re law and knows that she does not need to disclose [the father’s identity] and will not be putting him on the birth certificate. I advised C that this was her right however informed her that it is likely that this area may be explored again with her.’
- The case note of 11 March 2021 records, ‘C is aware of her rights to keep this information confidential’.
- An adoption team discussion on 18 March 2021 confirmed ‘it is C’s right not to inform [the] birth father if this is what she decides’. That same day the manager of [adoption agency] emailed M’s social worker and the prospective adopters’ social worker to say, ‘[C]ould I clarify that it is not that it is C’s right not to share the identity of the birth father - but that she cannot be made to share it’.
- C herself made clear that she had no intention of disclosing the birth father’s identity. At a meeting with both those social workers on 25 March 2021, the notes record, ‘mum said she knows legally she does not have to disclose…mum is willing to face the consequences’.
7. The local authority did not explore with C the reasons for her refusal in any detail, did not take any steps independently to find out the birth father’s identity, and did not seek advice from its legal department as to how to proceed. Taken together, its actions amounted to providing C with an assurance that the local authority would not go behind her decision.
8. M was born [in May 2021]. [A day after his birth] M’s mother consented to his being accommodated by the local authority pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989, and he was placed in the care of the prospective adopters, who at that stage were M’s foster carers.
9. [In] January 2022, C signed the forms pursuant to sections 19 and 20 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which gave her consent to M’s placement with the prospective adopters (section 19), for him to be adopted (section 20), and confirmation that she did not wish to be given notice of any adoption application (section 20(4)).
10. On 11 March 2022 the prospective adopters applied to the Court to adopt M. The application was issued on 4 April 2022 and directions made for the local authority to file its Annex A report. The first hearing was listed before me on 6 June 2022.
11. At that first hearing, I declined to make the adoption order, raising my concern that the Court could not do so without first having considered the question of whether or not the birth father should be notified.
12. The case of A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] EWCA Civ 41 is the leading authority. In his leading judgment, Jackson LJ reviews statute, case law and guidance, and at paragraph 86 describes the procedure that should be adopted in situations of this kind:
86. A local authority, faced with a baby that may require adoption, either because a mother wishes to relinquish the baby for adoption or because there are proceedings with a plan for adoption, will be acutely aware of the need for a speedy decision. Where the mother requests confidentiality, it will need to decide at a very early stage whether an application to court should be made to determine whether or not the putative father or relatives should be informed and consulted. There will be cases where, applying the principles summarised in this judgment, the local authority can be very clear that no application is required and planning for placement on the basis of the mother's consent can proceed. But in any case that is less clear-cut, an application should be issued so that problems concerning the lack of notification do not arise when adoption proceedings are later issued. In relation to a putative father, that application will be under Part 19 unless issues of significant harm have made it necessary to issue proceedings for a care or placement order; I would suggest that an equivalent application under the inherent jurisdiction can be made where a local authority has doubts about notification of a close relative.
87. I have referred already to the Cafcass/ADCS protocol, which has been taken up by a number of local authorities. In the proceedings before us, which involved three local authorities, the parties collectively filed an agreed statement of the steps that will need to be taken by the local authority in cases such as these. It is not for this court to determine local authority procedures but I record the parties' agreement for the help that it may give to those facing these situations.
"1. A local authority should take these steps as soon as it is notified that a mother, or mother and father, are expressing a wish that an infant is placed for adoption without notification to either the child's father or extended family:
(i) The local authority files should be checked for background information about the mother and extended family and for contacts with other relevant agencies, such as health and police.
(ii) The allocated social worker, ideally accompanied by an adoption worker, should undertake at least one visit but preferably a series of visits to the mother, or mother and father, if she/they are willing, to discuss:-
• The decision to place the child for adoption.
• The reasons for not notifying the child's father, or extended family, where possible gathering details about the father's background and that of the family.
• The mother's background and information about her family.
• Any cultural issues and how they have affected the decision made by the mother, or mother and father.
• The implications of adoption for the child
• The legal process required to achieve adoption
• Other possible options for the care of the child
• The adoption counselling service and how to access it
• Whether the mother, or mother and father, require any other form of support and how that might be achieved
No assurance should be offered to a parent during the social work visit/s that notice of the birth of the child will be withheld from the father and/or extended family members.
(iii) The mother, or mother and father, must be provided with written information, where available, about the process and adoption counselling services.
(iv) Where the father is identified, the local authority should check its records for any background information known about him.
(v) The placement team must be informed immediately and it should begin the process of finding a suitable placement, preferably with 'foster for adoption' / early permanence carers.
(vi) CAFCASS must be informed as soon as the local authority is notified so that it can allocate a worker to the case for the purpose of meeting with the mother, or mother and father, to discuss and where appropriate take consent for adoption.
2. The local authority should critically examine all information that it receives and, in circumstances where the mother states the identity of the father is unknown to her, the local authority should carefully consider her statement and her explanation to consider whether there is any basis for considering that the statement might be false. If the local authority does form that view, it should consider if there is any reasonable way by which the identity of the birth father could be established.
3. The social worker should, as a matter of urgency, seek legal advice to ascertain whether the matter should be placed before the court in all cases where:
(i) the mother opposes notification to the father, if identified;
(ii) the mother knows the identity of the father but is unwilling to disclose this information;
(iii) the local authority has reason to doubt the reliability of the mother's claim that the identity of the father is unknown, or
(iv) the mother is opposed to any notification to her family or the father's family.
4. The legal advisors will need to consider and advise as a matter of urgency whether a Part 19 application or other proceedings should be issued.
5. If a decision is made that a Part 19 application is not required, the local authority should immediately notify CAFCASS, and provide detailed reasons for that decision, to allow CAFCASS to consider this information prior to meeting with the mother, or mother and father, when discussing consent under section 19 or for any later adoption application.
6. As non-means/non-merits tested public funding is unavailable to parents for a Part 19 application (and emergency funding may be difficult to access on an emergency basis even if merits and means tests are met), a local authority should provide the mother, or mother and father, with advice concerning access to independent legal advice and how that might be obtained and funded (including by the local authority considering the funding of such advice). A list of specialist solicitors available in the area should be provided.
7. Where an application is to be made, the social worker should prepare a detailed statement setting out the information gathered and providing the local authority's position regarding the wish of the mother, or mother and father, to relinquish the child without notifying the father and/or extended family members."
(my underlining)
13. The case notes and chronology would suggest that the social workers in this case did much to take care of this vulnerable young mother at a difficult time. They had many meetings with her, listened to her, gave her space to sit with her decision and live and feel the consequences of it. They did not pressurise her to sign forms within any timeframe, but waited for her to contact them only when she was ready. At the same time, they remained responsive and attuned to her wishes and feelings, showing understanding and compassion for the emotional impact of the whole situation upon her. They supported her to have two meetings with M and to meet the prospective adopters.
14. However, there were serious errors in the local authority’s processes and procedure in relation to the birth father. Reviewing the steps that are suggested to be taken by Jackson LJ, there were serious omissions with regard to paragraph 1, and the steps set out in paragraphs 2 to 7 were missed altogether.
15. The consequences of this issue being raised a year after M was placed for adoption have been serious. C feels profoundly let down. The prospective adopters have lost trust in the local authority. They are bewildered that the application for adoption, which they had been given to understand would be straightforward, has developed into something so complex and stressful, and potentially damaging to M’s welfare.
16. The local authority has accepted full responsibility for its failings. It has pledged to carry out a full review and learn lessons. It may be that Cafcass will also need to carry out a review of the instructions given to the officer asked to witness the signing of the section 19 and section 20 consent forms, so that there is a cross-check as to whether due consideration has been given to notification of other family members.
17. In July 2022 the local authority made an application under Part 19 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The local authority invites the court to invoke the inherent jurisdiction through a procedure analogous to FPR 2010 r.14.21 whereby ‘an adoption agency or local authority may ask the High Court for directions on the need to give a father without parental responsibility notice of the intention to place a child for adoption’. This procedure, engaged through FPR 2010 r.19.1(2)(b) and r.19.2(1)(c), is that approved by Cobb J. in Re RA (Baby Relinquished for Adoption) [2017] 1 FLR 1610. Part 19 FPR 2010 may be used where Part 18 does not apply and, as here, ‘the applicant seeks the court’s decision on a question which is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact’. Rule 19.2(1)(c) specifically applies in relation to a r.14.21 application for directions regarding fathers without parental responsibility.
18. Notwithstanding that she had believed M to be already adopted, and had asked to play no part in any proceedings concerning his adoption, not even to be notified, by the Court’s direction C was notified of the application, and subsequently joined as a party. The prospective adopters have also been joined as interveners. The local authority has funded advice and representation for both C and for the prospective adopters.
Positions of the parties
19. At the time it made its application in July 2022, the local authority was asking the Court to sanction the mother’s decision not to notify the father. However that position has now changed. On behalf of the local authority, Miss Meyer KC and Miss Popley now support notification. They ask the Court to consider making directions that might enable the father to be identified, and then to return to Court to consider the question of notification again.
20. C asks me to draw a line under this whole process, for no further steps to be taken towards identifying M’s birth father, and for the proceedings to come to an end. Mr Goodwin KC, leading Miss Wilkins, argues firstly that the Court should respect and protect the autonomy of a young mother to make her own decision, citing the words of Holman J, in Z County Council v R [2001] 1 FLR 365 at 367:
‘The dilemma must, in fact, be a very old one. Although no statistics are available, many children must have been adopted over the years, outside their birth families, and with no knowledge by, or investigation of, other members of the birth family. Adoption exists to serve many social needs. But high among them has been, historically, the desire or need of some mothers to be able to conceal from their own family and friends, the fact of the pregnancy and birth. So far as I know, it has not previously been suggested, nor judicially determined, that that confidentiality of the mother cannot be respected and maintained. If it is now to be eroded, there is, in my judgment, a real risk that more pregnant women would seek abortions or give birth secretly, to the risk of both themselves and their babies… There is, in my judgment, a strong social need, if it is lawful, to continue to enable some mothers, such as this mother, to make discreet, dignified and humane arrangements for the birth and subsequent adoption of their babies, without their families knowing anything about it, if the mother, for good reason, so wishes.’
21. This passage refers to notification to wider maternal family, rather than to a father, but the passage has been cited with approval by other judges in the context of notification to a father (e.g. Re L [2007] EWHC 1771 (Fam)) .
22. Secondly, on C’s behalf it is argued that the physical, psychological and social impact on her, of the birth father discovering not only the fact of M’s existence, but the secret she has withheld from him all this time, will be so traumatic as to be unmanageable for her.
23. Thirdly, it is submitted that C is firm in her resolve not to reveal the name of the birth father. She believes this to be a decision she has made in M’s interest. It is submitted that there are no steps that the Court could or should reasonably contemplate in order to compel her to reveal his identity. In the circumstances, it is submitted that further delay will achieve nothing but further uncertainty, distress and delay for all involved.
24. Finally, when carrying out an analysis of the competing ECHR rights of C, M, his birth father and the prospective adopters, Mr Goodwin submits that the mother has a right to give birth to her child and to keep it a secret. He says that right should be accorded more weight than the birth father’s right to a potential family life with his child.
25. The prospective adopters are ‘neutral’ on the application, as they do not press for a particular outcome on the question of notification. However, as Miss Griffiths stated powerfully on their behalf in her written and oral submissions, their feelings are far removed from ‘neutrality’:
‘Whatever the decision of the court, the PAs are committed to M and to becoming his adoptive parents. He was placed with them aged 1 day old, on the basis that this was a consensual adoption. From M’s perspective, the PAs are his parents, their home is the only one he has known; he is thriving in their care and has been embraced by the extended families. It is incontrovertible that M and the PAs have a conjoined right to family life and the PAs also hold parental responsibility for M pursuant to ACA 2002 s.25(3).
While their commitment to M continues undiminished, the PAs feel utterly drained by the ongoing proceedings. It will not surprise the court that they have been through a rollercoaster of emotions including anger, disappointment, and fear. What saddens them greatly is that M has been let down by the very professionals responsible for securing his transition to a permanent home.’
26. The prospective adopters do not underestimate the significance of a gap in M’s knowledge and understanding of the identity of his birth father. But Miss Griffiths gives a vivid example of the impact of the legal limbo in which the prospective adopters and M have found themselves. M still carries his birth mother’s last name. He has started nursery, and even short of his second birthday, knows that this name is not the same as that of his ‘parents’. This is likely to invite questions, not just from M but others. It is a daily and painful reminder that M’s placement with his prospective adopters is not yet secure.
27. Mr Wraight represented M’s guardian Leeanda Morreale. She has considered the issues with care, and thoughtful insight. She recognises that M is happy and settled in his home with the prospective carers, that he is loved, and extremely well cared for. She acknowledges that C’s wishes and feelings are important, but she does not consider they should be determinative of the issue of notification. On balance, the guardian submits that the right decision for M would be for his birth father to be notified. M has the right to know who his father is, to have some information about him, and why he was not in a position to care for him. The guardian considers there are further steps that could be taken towards that end.
28. The guardian is not advocating a review of M’s placement in the event that his birth father is notified (although she acknowledges that could be a consequence of notification). However, she says that just because that may be a potential consequence, bringing with it the wholly unwelcome thought of prolonged delay and uncertainty, that is not a reason to give up on the issue of notification.
29. The birth father has not had a voice in these proceedings. He does not know that he has a son. He may now or in the future have children who will grow up not knowing that they have a brother. M is a lost grandchild, nephew, cousin to members of an extended family, who will never know they lost him. It cannot be known whether the birth father would have supported C’s decision for M to be adopted (although she thinks he would have done). There is a whole range of ways in which he might have wished to know M and for M to know him. The birth father has not been given the chance to consider the possibilities, let alone to advocate for any one of them.
The law
30. All parties agree that I should follow the approach advanced so clearly by Peter Jackson LJ in Re A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Father and Relatives) [2020] EWCA Civ 41. At paragraph 59, he gives the following summary:
59. Pausing at this point, this body of authority at first instance and on appeal affirms that there is a discretion to be exercised by the local authority and by the court as to whether fathers and other relatives should be notified of the birth of a child. The discretion requires the identification and balancing up of all relevant factors. While the mother's right to confidentiality is important it is not absolute. The presence or absence of family life is an important, though not a decisive feature and where it exists strong countervailing factors are required to justify withholding knowledge of the existence of the child and the proceedings. The tenor of the authorities is that in most cases notification will be appropriate and the absence of notification will be the exception; but each case will in the end depend on its facts. In each case, the welfare of the child was regarded as an important factor but, significantly, there is no suggestion that the exercise of the discretion is governed by the paramountcy principle.
31. Jackson LJ later summarises the approach the Court should take in determining the application. At paragraph 89:
“89. The principles governing decisions (by local authorities as adoption agencies or by the court) as to whether a putative father or a relative should be informed of the existence of a child who might be adopted can be summarised in this way.
• The law allows for ‘fast-track’ adoption with the consent of all those with parental responsibility, so in some cases the mother alone. Where she opposes notification being given to the child’s father or relatives her right to respect for her private life is engaged and can only be infringed where it is necessary to do so to protect the interests of others.
• The profound importance of the adoption decision for the child and potentially for other family members is clearly capable of supplying a justification for overriding the mother’s request. Whether it does so will depend upon the individual circumstances of the case.
• The decision should be prioritised and the process characterised by urgency and thoroughness.
• The decision-maker’s first task is to establish the facts as clearly as possible, mindful of the often limited and one-sided nature of the information available. The confidential relinquishment of a child for adoption is an unusual event and the reasons for it must be respectfully scrutinised so that the interests of others are protected. In fairness to those other individuals, the account that is given by the person seeking confidentiality cannot be taken at face value. All information that can be discovered without compromising confidentiality should therefore be gathered and a first-hand account from the person seeking confidentiality will normally be sought. The investigation should enable broad conclusions to be drawn about the relative weight to be given to the factors that must inform the decision.
• Once the facts have been investigated the task is to strike a fair balance between the various interests involved. The welfare of the child is an important factor but it is not the paramount consideration.
Analysis
32. I have read and considered all the documents in the bundle, which include C’s statement, a short statement from Ms T (social worker), filed in support of this application, which refers to the local authority’s case notes (but does not formally exhibit them), the case notes themselves, and the guardian’s analysis. At the hearing, no party objected to me accepting as evidence a letter from C’s general practitioner, which told me something of the impact upon her of her pregnancy, her decision to give her consent to M being adopted, and of being dragged back into these proceedings.
33. I have not heard oral evidence from C, or any other witness.
34. C’s statement deals relatively briefly with the relationship she had with the birth father.
35. The birth father’s recollection of the relationship and his own conduct may be different to C’s. He has not had the opportunity to give his own account to the Court.
36. The case notes contain information, and record accounts from C, about her relationship with the birth father. I have been told that C takes issue with some of the contents, which she says reflect times when what she has said has been misunderstood, misheard or misconstrued. At the time she was having those discussions, she did not consider she had to give any explanation for her decision to keep the pregnancy secret, and she was not asked very detailed questions about her reasons, or much about the relationship. She would have had no idea that the notes would be pored over by lawyers many months later. In relationships which have been unhappy, unhealthy or abusive, the realisation of that and understanding of the dynamic can happen a long time after the event. A person who is not describing a relationship negatively when first asked about it is not necessarily mis-describing the relationship, but may not yet have come to such a realisation. For all these reasons, I approach the case notes with some caution.
37. Nevertheless, these notes were made at the time or very shortly after the conversations. The notes were made in respect of conversations designed to obtain the relevant information (granted there was not as much investigation of the relationship and C’s reasons for excluding the father as there should have been). There are some inconsistencies in the notes about the length of the relationship - it is variously recorded that the relationship lasted two years, two or three years, or four years. There are various records of her discovering pregnancy at 29, 30 or 31 weeks, she says it was thirty-one. But I do not know whether these variations record different accounts from the mother, accurately recorded, or inaccurately record consistent accounts from the mother. There is no actual evidence, let alone evidence that has been tested by cross-examination, from either the mother or the notes’ authors about their accuracy. My view is that the extent to which I can go behind their contents is limited.
38. The contemporaneous notes are of assistance. They note key discussions, set out the chronology, and give an insight into what C said to professionals about how she was feeling at different times about the decision she made and the situation in which she found herself.
39. The following entries record discussions about the birth father:
16.03.21 Childs father: was with him for 2-3 years broke up in November then she did not know she was pregnant, he is with someone else now, she decided to deal with it herself, she made the decision not to tell him, as far as he knows he won’t want the baby either
25.03.2021 C said that her relationship with the baby’s father ended bitterly but later on said things ended ok
We discussed supporting C with her decision around paternity but advised it would be important for an adopted child to know, to understand their identity. C said she thinks she would disclose once the adoption is complete.
Father is not local to [place name redacted], he still does not know about the pregnancy, mum confirmed she is not in any danger, they are not in touch and no communication until is finalized
mum does not want to say who father is
mum said she knows legally she does not have to disclose
mum is willing to face the consequences
mum believes dad would agree with mum’s decision
mum said if dad were to be found out he will support her option for adoption
13.04.2021 … she had anxiety and depression previously but doesn’t now
She mentioned that [X] her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly cheated on her and had also been emotionally/psychologically abusive towards her criticising every part of her body. C said he had been her only boyfriend, that she had begged him to come back to her each time he had cheated and that he had started wanting her back when she stopped contacting him.
C said it is only very recently that she has realised that abuse isn’t just physical abuse…..
28.07.2021 C indicates is somewhere 90% decided however wants to be 100% sure on her decision …..considers she needs to be able to care for herself in order to be able to care for M
…. C informs that spoke to her manager [at work] about what she is going through….
C said M looked like [X] and showed a photograph of [X]… C said she met with [X] last weeks when she went to [redacted] and said after she saw him she knew she made the right decision
C said she started to tell more people about her pregnancy and M and show pictures of M to them.
40. In her witness statement, C recounts how she met the birth father at university. She initially got to know him through a mutual friend and on social media. They entered into a relationship in January 2019. The relationship ended finally in November 2020. She says that she never felt loved in the relationship, and felt that the birth father’s behaviour towards her was manipulative. She said that he could put her down in front of friends, and make her feel worthless. She said in her statement that she would describe his behaviour as coercive and controlling. She said if she raised issues with him about his behaviour towards her, ‘he would stop speaking to me, ignore me and refuse to engage with me’. She said that during the frequent occasions they would break up, the birth father would then have relationships with other women, and blame her for it. She said that nonetheless she would beg him to take her back. She says in her statement she is disappointed in herself for allowing him to treat her in that way, but she was only nineteen, and she thought that she was in love.
41. The description in the witness statement resonates with much of what is shown in the case notes, which are thumb-nail sketches of the relationship. However, even allowing for the development of understanding of the dynamic over time, the description in the witness statement is more negative and accusatory towards the father than comes across in the notes. The notes record that C has shown pictures of M to more than one friend, and intended to tell the father once the adoption has taken place. This conveys a different picture than that put forward in submissions (but not in her witness statement) that she has not shared the information more widely than with her immediate family, and that she never said she intended to tell the father after the adoption.
42. C said in her statement that the local authority is wrong to class it as a ‘significant’ relationship, because it only lasted eighteen months and was very ‘on and off’ during that time. Whether more off than on or not, and characterised by a certain level of immaturity on both sides, C describes a relationship that had a significant and enduring impact on her, and which she came to realise had a very unhealthy and unhappy dynamic, which was not at all good for her, and left her feeling worthless and unloved.
43. The birth father has not had the opportunity to put his version of events across. It is not known whether he would agree with any part of C’s description of the relationship.
Review of all the circumstances, including the A, B, and C factors
44. There is no single test for distinguishing between cases in which notification should and should not be given. However, in A, B and C, Peter Jackson LJ identifies a number of factors which will be relevant when reaching a decision. I now consider each in turn.
Parental responsibility
45. C has made a choice not to tell the birth father about M, and so he has not had the chance to acquire parental responsibility. He does not have the benefit of automatic notification, party status or the right to give or withhold consent to adoption.
Article 8 rights
46. There is no existing family life between M and the birth father, nor between the birth father and C, nor evidence of any intention between them to have a relationship that was to be the foundation for family life. The father has not acquired rights under Article 8.
47. However, even if he does not have article 8 rights, he certainly has an interest that needs to be considered. By not being notified, the birth father has not had the opportunity to establish any form of family life or relationship with M during his childhood, potentially for his whole life. He does not know M exists.
48. This interest extends to the wider paternal birth family; siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins.
49. This applies the other way; M’s family life is with his adoptive parents, but he has an interest in knowing who his birth father is, and potentially establishing some form of relationship with him or members of the wider family.
50. C has been clear from the outset that she believed M’s best interests were served by his being adopted without notification to his birth father. In making her own choices about the baby that she carried and gave birth to, her right to respect for her private and family life is engaged.
51. The prospective adopters undoubtedly have established article 8 rights to respect for the family life that they have established with M, given his placement with them since birth, that they hold parental responsibility for him, and are committed to caring for him within their family for all their lives together.
52. The Court has to place all these competing rights and interests in the balance.
