The question of whether the local authority (LA) can proceed with the adoption of a child without notifying the extended family lies at the heart of the case of CB. Having reviewed all the circumstances and facts, the High Court made it clear that, in this case, the anonymity of the mother outweighs the need to disclose the birth to the extended family.
Background:
The LA sought a declaration that they are not required to notify wider family members of the existence of CB to facilitate her adoption. CB is a 10-month-old girl whose mother is MB. CB’s father is unknown but is not MB’s husband, HB, as confirmed by a DNA test. HB and MB have had two previous children together.
MB consented to CB’s adoption. The LA is seeking a declaration that they are not required to notify the wider family members of the existence of CB. How CB was conceived was highly unusual and subject to some questions that the Court did not try to answer. According to the mother, CB had been conceived through artificial insemination without the husband’s knowledge to help their family friends who were unable to conceive. The friends then told her that they did not wish to have a child.
When CB was born, MB made it known that she sought to relinquish her care. CB was voluntarily accommodated in foster care on discharge from the hospital and she has been in foster care since that time. MB has chosen to have contact with her only once in October 2023 when she also met with her foster carers. MB’s children and extended family do not know of CB's existence. The only person in her family who knows this secret is her husband when he found out two weeks before she gave birth to CB.
The LA supported the mother’s application in her desire to maintain confidentiality.
Decision:
The Court had to balance the confidentiality requested by MB against the potential interests of the wider family. The case referenced the Court of Appeal ruling in Re A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020]. Judge Hayes KC held that any disadvantage to CB that flowed from respecting her mother’s wish for confidentiality was far outweighed by the need to avoid the breakdown of the marriage of the mother and her husband with the likely harmful impact on their two other children. It was also outweighed by the welfare benefits of planning for CB’s adoption without further delay. She also noted that there was a need to respect MB’s Article 8 right to a private and family life and so any further inquiry into CB's conception would constitute an unwarranted interference.
As the husband was not CB’s father, his consent was not required to place her for adoption, nor for her to be adopted, pursuant to Sections 19 and 20 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
The Judge also took into consideration the fact that MB’s parents were unable to care for CB as her mother acts as her dad’s carer. Her brother was also discarded as a viable option as he is single and works full-time. The Judge did not see any need to inform them as it caused some unnecessary distress.
Implications:
The Court balanced the rights of the mother and child against the potential interest of extended family members. This decision demonstrates that the rights under Article 8 of the family could outweigh the rights of the extended family. Moreover, the judgement highlights the importance of avoiding further delays in the adoption process and the potential harm to CB's welfare from extended litigation.
