Re A, B, C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020]

1. Facts:

• Case A:

◦ Background: Baby A was born to a young student mother who sought to place the baby for adoption and wanted to keep the details secret from the father and wider family.

◦ Trial Decision: The trial judge decided that there was no legal obligation to inform the father or the relatives.

◦ Appeal: The appeal was allowed, challenging the initial decision to keep the adoption process confidential from the father and family.

• Case B:

◦ Background: Baby B was born to a 23-year-old mother who wanted to raise the child herself despite concerns from the Local Authority (LA) regarding her ability to do so. The mother feared abuse from her family and their reaction to her having a child out of wedlock with someone of a different race and cultural heritage.

◦ Trial Decision: The trial judge ruled that the mother’s relatives should be informed about the child.

◦ Appeal: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision to notify the family members.

• Case C:

◦ Background: Baby C was born to a 29-year-old mother who conceived the child as a result of rape. The parents were married and had other children.

◦ Trial Decision: The trial court ruled to notify the father and wider family about the birth.

◦ Appeal: The appeal against notifying the family was dismissed.

2. Outcome:

• General Findings:

◦ Discretion in Notification: Lord Jackson outlined that the courts have discretion in determining whether to inform the father or relatives. This discretion involves balancing various relevant factors.

◦ Principles Applied:

1. Mother’s Right to Confidentiality: Not absolute; must be weighed against other factors.

2. Welfare Paramountcy: The child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration, guided by the welfare checklist.

3. Consistency: There is no hierarchical importance among relatives; each case must be evaluated on its own merits.

4. Factors to Consider: These include parental responsibility, Article 8 rights, the nature of relationships, the realism of family placements as alternatives to adoption, the impact of notification, and cultural and religious factors.

• Specific Case Outcomes:

◦ Case A: Appeal allowed; the decision to keep the adoption process secret from the father and family was overturned.

◦ Case B: Appeal dismissed; decision to inform the relatives was upheld.

◦ Case C: Appeal dismissed; decision to notify the father and family was upheld.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Discretion and Balance: The case underscores the courts' discretion in determining whether to notify fathers or relatives in adoption cases. The balance involves carefully weighing the mother's confidentiality against the child’s welfare and the potential benefits of family involvement.

• Consistency and Factors: Lord Jackson emphasised that while there is no single test, factors such as parental responsibility, rights under Article 8, and the potential impact of notification play a crucial role. This ensures decisions are made based on a comprehensive evaluation rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

• Welfare Paramountcy: The principle of the child’s welfare being paramount remains central, with decisions needing to align with the welfare checklist and consider the broader impact of family involvement or the lack thereof.

• Precedent: The rulings provide guidance on handling sensitive cases involving secret births, highlighting the need for rigorous, case-specific evaluations to balance confidentiality with the best interests of the child.