Winchester Vacancies

Notifying fathers of the birth of their child

RCJ portrait 146x219When is it necessary for a local authority to notify a father about the birth of his child? Eleanor Marsh analyses a significant ruling.

In Re C [2018] EWHC 3332 (Fam) Cohen J was concerned with a six-month-old baby, C, who was the subject of care proceedings as a result of her mother making it clear at birth that she was unable to care for the child and wished for her to be adopted.

The issue to be determined was whether the local authority should inform the father and his family about the  child’s birth.

The mother was only 13 years old when she became pregnant. The father was approximately one year older. Their relationship was extremely brief. The birth of C was a complete surprise for the mother and her family, and C was discharged into the care of foster carers by way of a section 20 agreement. No more than eight people, in addition to the professionals involved, knew about the birth of C. 

Analysis

Cobb J at paragraph 19 of Re A (Relinquished baby Risk of domestic abuse) [2018] EWHC 1981 (Fam), summarises the previous authorities as follows:

  1. Each case is fact-sensitive;
  2. The outcome contended for here is "exceptional";
  3. The paramount consideration is the welfare of A;
  4. The court must have regard to the welfare checklist in section 1(4) ACA 2002;
  5. It is a further requirement of statute that the court has regard to the wishes and feelings of the child's relatives;
  6. Respect can and indeed must be afforded to the mother's wish for a confidential and discreet arrangement for the adoption of her child, although the mother's wishes must be critically examined and not just accepted at face value; overall the mother's wishes carry "significant weight" albeit that they are not decisive;
  7. Article 8 rights are engaged in this decision; however, in a case where a natural parent wishes to relinquish a baby, the degree of interference with the Article 8 rights is likely to be less than where the parent/child relationship is to be severed against the will of the parent;
  8. Adoption of any kind still represents a significant interference with family life, and can only be ordered by the court if it is necessary and proportionate;
  9. A high level of justification is still required before the court can sanction adoption as the outcome, and a thorough 'analysis' of the options is necessary; 'analysis' is different from 'assessment' – a sufficient 'analysis' may be performed even though the natural family are unaware of the process.
  10. As I said in Re RA at [38]: "in order to weigh up all of the relevant considerations in determining a relinquished baby case it may be possible (it may in some cases be necessary) and/or proportionate to perform the analysis without full assessment of third parties, or even their knowledge of the existence of the baby. The court will consider the available information in relation to the individual child and make a judgment about whether, and if so what, further information is needed".

Cobb J’s analysis was adopted by Cohen J, but the following was added:

  1. The remedy sought by the mother is exceptional and therefore the circumstances needed to justify the remedy have to be exceptional. There does not, however, have to be one exceptional factor. A combination of circumstances, none in themselves exceptional, may satisfy the test when aggregated. 
  2. All of the circumstances must be considered holistically, including an assessment, regardless of its imperfections, of what the paternal family is likely to be able to offer. 
  3. The mother could, if she had known, have declined to name the father, which would have avoided the need for the court to consider the issue. Whilst not a relevant factor, its impact on the mother may be relevant.

Cohen J concluded that it would not be appropriate for the father to be informed of C’s birth, due to a number of factors including, but not limited to: 

  1. The very young age of the mother and the effect upon her life, 
  2. The probability of the knowledge spreading around the mother’s community which may lead to her education being terminated / social isolation,   
  3. The psychological vulnerability of the mother, 
  4. The mother’s genuinely held fears of what the father might do, 
  5. The impact upon the mother’s family, 
  6. There being no ground for a realistic belief that the paternal family could offer C a safe and secure home, 
  7. And the court having sufficient knowledge of the paternal family which could enable future life story work.

Eleanor Marsh is a barrister at St Ives Chambers. She can be contacted on 0121 236 0863 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..