X County Council v C
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE MUNBY,Mr Justice Munby |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 1771 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD07P00722 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 20 July 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 1771 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Munby
In The Matter of L (Dob 29.6.2006) and
In The Matter of The Inherent Jurisdiction of The High Court and
In The Matter of Section 100 of The Children Act 1989
Case No: FD07P00722
Mr Aidan Vine and (on 6 July 2007) Miss Louise Potter (instructed by the Group Solicitor) for the local authority
Miss Joy Brereton (instructed by Cafcass Legal Services and Special Casework) for the child
The respondent mother C appeared in person
Approved Judgment
Hearing dates: 10 May 2007, 15 June 2007 and 6 July 2007
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment was handed down in private but the judge hereby gives leave for it to be published.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the child and the adult members of her family must be strictly preserved.
L was born on 29 June 2006. Her parents were not married. It would seem that their relationship was brief, lasting no more than a few weeks.
Since before L's birth, her mother, C, has been resolute that L should be adopted. She concealed her pregnancy from everyone – it seems that L's father was unaware of the pregnancy and remains unaware of his daughter's existence. She did not seek any antenatal health care. She presented herself at hospital in labour, giving birth to L two hours later. She left hospital within two hours of L's birth without seeing her, but having named her L, and requesting that she be adopted. And she has not seen her daughter since, refusing even to receive photographs of her.
Since 30 June 2006 L has been in the voluntary care of the local authority.
C has given the local authority certain information about L's father. But she professes to be unable – the local authority and the guardian suspect that she is able but unwilling – to provide information which would enable him to be either identified or traced. Mindful of its obligations to the father, and unable to progress matters in any other way, the local authority has invoked the assistance of the court.
The proceedings
On 3 April 2007 the local authority issued an originating summons seeking permission pursuant to section 100 of the Children Act 1989 to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The substantive relief it sought was orders (i) that the local authority need not take any further steps to identify L's father or to notify him of its intention to place L for adoption and (ii) that it need not inform or consult any members of the maternal family regarding L's birth or the intention to place her for adoption.
The matter came before me on 10 May 2007. The local authority was represented by Mr Aidan Vine. Its evidence was set out in an affidavit sworn by L's social worker on 3 April 2007. The mother appeared in person, assisted by a McKenzie friend. Whilst at court she countersigned a copy of the social worker's affidavit, indicating those statements within it with which she either agreed (the majority) or disagreed.
I gave the local authority leave to apply for orders under the court's inherent jurisdiction, made L a party to the proceedings and pursuant to FPR rule 9.5 directed than an officer of Cafcass be appointed as her guardian. I timetabled the case to a final hearing and directed that the mother's attendance at future hearings was not required unless she was specifically ordered to attend.
The matter next came before me on 15 June 2007. The mother chose not to attend. L's guardian was represented by Miss Joy Brereton. There was a further affidavit sworn by the social worker on 12 June 2007 stating that the mother “does not want to work with the local authority or engage herself with the planning for her daughter. She appears to want nothing further to do with [L].” The mother had still provided no further information about L's father.
The guardian had filed a report dated 11 June 2007 recommending (and giving clear and convincing reasons for her recommendations) that I should direct (a) that the local authority need not inform or consult the maternal family regarding L's birth or placement, (b) that the local authority should take steps to inform L's father of her existence and (c) that to this end, the mother should disclose all information she had about L's father, including his surname and last known address.
I made an order that the local authority “need not and should not” take any further steps to inform or consult any members of the maternal family regarding L's birth or the intention to place her for adoption. The mother was adamant that her family should know nothing about what had happened and it seemed to me that in all the circumstances this understandable desire should be respected.
There is, if I may say so, much humanity and wisdom in what Holman J said in Z County Council v R [2001] 1 FLR 365 at page 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.”
Having considered the matter by reference both to our domestic law and to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Holman J concluded at page 375 that it was indeed lawful. I agree.
However I took the view that a further attempt should be made to obtain information from the mother about L's father. So the order I made contained this recital: “upon the court indicating that the information required under paragraph 2 below is necessary in the interests of [L]'s welfare throughout her life and urging [the mother] to provide the information.” Paragraph 2 of the order directed the mother to disclose to the guardian by 3 July 2007, for the purposes of disclosure to the court and the local authority, the following information about L's father: his full name, all addresses at which he had been known to reside, including his last known address, all known telephone numbers and email addresses, his last known place of work and his date of birth.
I listed the matter for further hearing on 6 July 2007 and directed that the mother must attend that hearing unless, having complied with the order to disclose, she was notified that her attendance was not required.
I declined to attach a penal notice to any part of that order.
The guardian wrote to the mother on 19 June 2007 and spoke to her on 3 July 2007. The mother told her that she was unable to disclose any further information about L's father.
The mother attended the hearing on 6 July 2007. She told me that there was no further information about L's father she could provide. Having heard submissions both from Miss Louise Potter, who was representing the local authority in Mr Vine's unavoidable absence because of other professional commitments, and from Miss Brereton, I concluded that there were no further steps that could sensibly be undertaken.
Both Miss Potter and Miss Brereton properly stressed the need in L's interests to progress matters without any further delay. L was now just over a year old. She urgently needed finality. An adoption panel appointment had been booked for 27 July 2007 and papers needed to be filed by 13 July 2007.
Accordingly I made an order in the following terms:
“Upon [the mother] in person confirming to the court that she has no further information concerning the identity of [L]'s father and
upon the court having no further information concerning the identity of [L]'s father notwithstanding its order of 15 th June 2007
…
IT IS ORDERED
1 The [local authority] need not and should not take any further steps to seek to identify [L]'s father or to inform or consult him regarding [L]'s birth or the intention to place her for adoption.
2 The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S (W) v Adoption Board
...E.H.R.R. 342. Kuijper v. The Netherlands (App. No. 64848/01) (2005) 41 E.H.R.R. SE 266. Re L; (Adoption: Contacting Natural Father) [2007] EWHC 1771 (Fam), [2008] 1 F.L.R. 1079; [2007] Fam Law 1124; [2007] All E.R. (D) 27 (Dec). Lebbink v. The Netherlands (App. No. 45582/99) (2004) 40 E.H.R......
-
R (on the application of G) v Nottingham City Council
...3 WLR 1166, [2006] 1 FLR 601. HL v UK (2004) 81 BMLR 131, 17 BHRC 418, 40 EHRR 761, ECt HR. L (a child) (adoption: disclosure), Re[2007] EWHC 1771 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 1079. Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green (No 3) [1979] 2 All ER 193, [1979] Ch 496, [1979] 2 WLR 594. R (on the application o......
-
R (G) v Nottingham City Council - and - Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
...a woman is able to give a valid consent to the accommodation of her newly-born baby by the local authority immediately after birth. Re L, X County Council v C [2007] EWHC 1771 (Fam) is a recent example, where a woman who had entered a labour ward with a settled intention to hand over her ba......
-
Cases A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives)
...at a later stage if notification is incorrectly withheld. 52 Returning to the authorities on notification of fathers and relatives, in Z County Council v R [2001] 1 FLR 365 a mother concealed her pregnancy from her family and made pre-birth arrangements with the local authority for the baby......
-
Table of Cases
...KL (A Child), Re [2013] UKSC 75, [2014] 1 AC 1017, [2013] 3 WLR 1597, [2014] 1 FLR 772 9 L (Adoption: Contacting Natural Father), Re [2007] EWHC 1771 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 1079, [2008] Fam Law 9, [2007] All ER (D) 27 (Dec) 183 L (Adoption: Disclosure of Information), Re. See D v Registrar Gen......
-
Adoption Agencies
...may be relevant. 16.30 Other cases where this issue has been considered include those discussed at paras 16.31–16.33. 16.31 In Re L [2007] EWHC 1771 (Fam), the court excused the local authority from trying to locate the father where the mother was not aware of his whereabouts. A and B v P C......