Re M & N (Twins: Relinquished Babies: Parentage)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr. Justice Cobb |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWFC 31 |
| Docket Number | Case No: LS17C00184 |
| Court | Family Court |
| Date | 24 May 2017 |
[2017] EWFC 31
IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING IN LEEDS
Coverdale House
East Parade
Leeds
The Honourable Mr. Justice Cobb
Case No: LS17C00184
John Wood (a solicitor of JWP Solicitors) for the Local Authority
Jennifer Heckingbottom (a solicitor from Switalskis) for the Children's Guardian
The mother and father were neither present nor represented
Hearing dates: 9 May 2017
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 children and members of their 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.
M (a girl) and N (a boy) are twins, who were born in November 2016, and are therefore now six months old. They are healthy infants making good developmental progress. They are currently in foster care, and subject to interim care orders in favour of Kirklees Metropolitan District Council ("the Local Authority").
These twins were relinquished by their mother ('Ms A') at birth for adoption. The putative father ('Mr B') does not have parental responsibility for the children; he has nonetheless indicated that he supports the mother in her wish for the children to be placed permanently in an adoptive home. Neither parent is present or represented at the hearing before me.
The Local Authority has made applications to the Court for the following orders:
i) For a declaration under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 that Mr B is indeed the father of M and N; this is not required as part of any legal process engaged here, but the application has been made in order to achieve clarity to support life-story work for the twins;
ii) For a declaration (on an application issued under Part 19 FPR 2010, in accordance with the guidance in Re RA (Baby Relinquished for Adoption: Case Management) [2016] EWFC 25: see [50/51]) that it need not notify, let alone investigate or assess, any extended family member of the mother or the father as potential carers for the children;
iii) For a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (" CA 1989") (application dated 3 March 2017)'
iv) For a placement order under section 21 Adoption and Children Act 2002 (' ACA 2002') (application dated 4 May 2017).
The children are automatic respondents to the applications for care and placement orders ([3](iii) and [3](iv) above). They have been joined as respondents to the application for a declaration as to parentage ([3](ii)), and are represented in all of the applications by their Children's Guardian in accordance with Part 16 FPR 2010.
Background
I propose to give only the barest details about the background of this case, given the mother's wish for discreet arrangements to be made for the adoption of the twins.
Ms A is a divorced professional person in her 40s, with an older child whom she cares for; Ms A and her former husband divorced in September 2015 well before the conception of the twins, and he therefore has no status in this application. Little is known of the relationship between Ms A and Mr B; they do not currently reside together though they maintain contact. They appear to have ended their intimate relationship some months before the birth of the twins. The Local Authority have had cause to assess Ms A as a parent in the past, and she is demonstrably a good mother to her older child. Ms A has indicated that she could not financially, or emotionally, cope with the care of one or more additional children.
The putative father, also believed to be in his 40s, is not named on the children's birth certificates, and – as earlier indicated – he does not have parental responsibility for them. He maintains that he was, indeed, unaware of the birth of the twins until he was contacted by the Local Authority early in February 2017. While he says that he had known that the mother had become pregnant in 2016, he had believed that the mother's pregnancy had been terminated. He no longer lives locally to the mother. He has confirmed that he is not able or willing to care for the twins, because of his age and circumstances, and although he was initially opposed to the plan that they be placed for adoption, he has since indicated (having apparently discussed the matter with the mother) that he considers that this is the best outcome for the infants.
The mother concealed her pregnancy until only two weeks before the birth; she first contacted ante-natal medical professionals at her GP surgery when she was approximately 38+ weeks gestation. In the days which followed, her engagement with midwifery and social care services was intermittent, though she attended punctually for the pre-planned delivery by caesarean section on the appointed day. She made it known from the first contact with medical professionals that she wished for her baby/ies (initially she did not realise she was expecting twins), to be adopted. Immediately following their birth, she requested for them to be placed in foster care, and signed the forms consenting to their accommodation under section 20 of the CA 1989. She later named the twins, and registered their birth in early December 2016, but has not seen them since the day of their birth. She has largely avoided contact with professionals since the birth; on those occasions when she has been contacted, she has remained resolute that she wishes the twins to be adopted.
These babies do not have an extensive wider family network. The mother has a sister with older children; the mother's parents are reasonably believed to be in their mid-late 60s (possibly older). It is not entirely clear to me whether Ms A's parents are aware of the birth of the twins or not. The social work evidence is inconsistent on this point, and it was not clarified satisfactorily at the hearing. The problem lies to some extent in the fact that the mother has not co-operated with invitations to discuss the situation and has not provided any addresses or contact details of the extended family members.
The father is an only child whose parents are deceased.
The social worker last actually met with Ms A on 30 December 2016. The social worker last met Mr B on 30 March 2017 when she hand-delivered documents to his home. The Children's Guardian has not been able to meet with either parent, despite attempts to do so.
The application for the care order was made on 3 March 2017. I was concerned about the delay in launching these Part IV CA 1989 proceedings; Mr. Wood explained that the Local Authority had been trying to engage the parents in providing consents for the placements for adoption, using the authorisation which would in those circumstances be available under section 19 ACA 2002, and only when those efforts failed were proceedings issued. I accept that position in general terms, but would urge local authorities in situations such as this not to delay in issuing proceedings, particularly where – as here – the children are not placed in an 'Early Permanence Foster Placement'. Every day counts.
It is re-assuring to note that there are many potential adoptive couples who would be keen to care for these twins.
Involvement of the parents in the hearing
This case was listed before me for determination of the applications at [3](i) and (ii), and for Early Final Hearing ( PD12A FPR 2010: Stage 2 Case Management) of the applications at [3](iii) and (iv). Given the low levels of engagement of the parents with professionals, I wished to satisfy myself that all appropriate steps had been taken to notify them that this was indeed the final hearing. There has been periodic exchange of e-mail and other correspondence, which reassures me that the parents were kept abreast of the progress of the litigation. I am satisfied that on 3 May 2017, the solicitor for the Local Authority sent to the parents a letter confirming that the Agency Decision Maker had ratified the plan for adoption, and containing the date of this hearing as the final hearing, urging them to obtain legal advice; the mother confirmed that the parents had indeed received the letter. Other correspondence has confirmed the nature of the evidence before the court, and the decisions which need to be made.
Declaration of parentage
First, the Local Authority seeks a declaration that Mr B is the father of the twins. This application is brought under section 55A Family Law Act 1986 which provides that "any person may apply to the High Court or the family court for a declaration as to whether or not a person named in the application is or was the parent of another person so named". Given that the Local Authority has parental responsibility for these twins under section 38 CA 1989, I am satisfied (per section 55A(3)) that they have "a sufficient personal interest in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re S (Child as parent: Adoption: Consent)
...that M was likely to suffer significant harm by reason of knowing nothing of his parentage, background or origins. 47 In Re M & N (Twins: Relinquished Babies: Parentage) [2017] EWFC 31, I found the 'threshold' (under section 21(2)(b) ACA 2002) established in relation to relinquished twins, ......
-
H v R and another (No 2) (Attorney General intervening)
...of Information), In re [1998] Fam 19; [1997] 2 WLR 739; [1997] 1 FLR 715, CAM and N (Twins: Relinquished Babies: Parentage), In re [2017] EWFC 31; [2018] 1 FLR 293M v W (Declaration of Parentage) [2006] EWHC 2341 (Fam); [2007] 2 FLR 270Monkland v Jack Barclay Ltd [1951] 2 KB 252; [1951] All......
-
Re H (Care and Adoption: Assessment of wider family)
...Re JL & AO [2016] EWHC 440 (Fam), Re RA [2016] (see above), Re TJ [2017] EWFC 6, Re M & N (Twins: relinquished babies: Parentage) [2018] 1 FLR 293, and A Local Authority v the mother and another [2017] EWHC 1515 (Fam), Re A (Relinquished Baby: Risk of Domestic Abuse) [2018] EWHC 1981 34 T......
-
Re C (Adoption)
...(Fam), [2016] 4 WLR 40, [2017] 1 FLR 1545. A and Ors, Re[2017] EWHC 1515 (Fam), [2017] 2 FLR 1321. M and N (twins: relinquished babies),Re[2017] EWFC 31, [2018] 1 FLR RA (baby relinquished for adoption),Re[2016] EWFC 25, [2016] 4 WLR 104, [2017] 1 FLR 1610. TJ,Re[2017] EWFC 6 (2 February 20......
-
Table of Cases
...94 Appeals), Re [1995] 1 FLR 546, [1995] 2 FCR 435, [1995] Fam Law 236, CA 83 M and N (Twins: Relinquished Babies: Parentage), Re [2017] EWFC 31, [2018] 1 FLR 293, [2017] Fam Law 815 182 M v J. See DM v SJ (Surrogacy: Parental Order) M v S (Consent: Missing Parent). See S (Adoption), Re M v......
-
Adoption Agencies
...C (Child v XYZ CC) [2007] 182 Adoption Law: A Practical Guide EWCA Civ 1206; see also Re M and N (Twins: Relinquished Babies: Parentage) [2017] EWFC 31). The view of the birth family, although relevant, is not determinative ( Re JL and AO (Babies Relinquished for Adoption) [2016] EWHC 440 (......