place a duty on
a local authority to inform, consult, assess or otherwise consider members of the wider family of a child in circumstances such as these” (see Re H at §22) emphasis in the original). 22.This was a point confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Re A, B, C, to which I was referred: “There is no statutory obligation upon a local authority to make enquiries in every case, and the issue of notification is a matter of discretionary judgment in the light of all the facts of the case.” (Peter Jackson LJ in Re A B C at §66); 23.Both Peter Jackson J in Re A. B, C, and I, in Re H, had cited the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Re C v XYZ County Council [2007] EWCA Civ 1206, [2008] 1 FLR 1294 in which Arden LJ said: ““there is no duty to make enquiries which it is not in the interests of the child to make, and enquiries are not in the interests of the child simply because they will provide more information about the child's background: they must genuinely further the prospect of finding a long-term carer for the child without delay” (at §3). 24.Thirdly, even if the mother’s birth family could be regarded as “other person[s] connected” with F, or “any such person” in the role of relative, evaluation is only truly required of “realistic” options, as I have sought to accentuate above. As I said in Re H (at §32) and I repeat here: “… the courts have been keen to emphasise that if family members are identified as potential carers, it is not contemplated that the local authority duty to consider them extends to a duty to “uncover” every stone nor “exhaustively examine” the ground before concluding that a particular option is not realistic (Re R at [65]). The cases make clear that the court is concerned only with “realistic” options. In Re R, at [59], it was said: “Re B-S does not require that every conceivable option on the spectrum that runs between 'no order' and 'adoption' has to be canvassed and bottomed out with reasons in the evidence and judgment in every single case. Full consideration is required only with respect to those options which are "realistically possible".” 25.Fourthly, they maintain that Article 8 almost certainly does not apply to the birth family in this case (see also [15](vii) above). The existence or non-existence of “family life” for the purposes of Article 8 is essentially a question of fact and degree, depending upon the existence in the individual case of a relationship and/or personal ties which have sufficient constancy and substance to create de facto “family ties” see: Lebbink v The Netherlands [2004] 2 FLR 463, ECHR. On these facts, they submit (and I can confirm that I agree) that it does not apply. 26.Fifthly, while they accept that I should treat the mother’s comments about her birth family with some care, I can undertake an ‘analysis’ of the information and reach a conclusion; I am not required to perform a full assessment in order to do so; (Re JL & AO [2016] EWHC 440 (Fam), [2017] 1 FLR 1545); I bear in mind what Peter Jackson LJ said in Re A, B, C at §89(6)(4): ““The likelihood of a family placement being a realistic alternative to adoption. This is of particular importance to the child's lifelong welfare as it may determine whether or not adoption is necessary. An objective view, going beyond the say-so of the person seeking confidentiality, should be taken about whether a family member may or may not be a potential carer. Where a family placement is unlikely to be worth investigating or where notification may cause significant harm to those notified, this factor will speak in favour of maintaining confidentiality; anything less than that and it will point the other way”. 27.Finally, the relevance of the mother’s own vulnerability. It was recognised by Peter Jackson LJ in Re A, B, C that if there would be a psychological impact on the mother of notification being given this “must weigh heavily in the balancing exercise” (§89(6)(5)). I made a similar point in Re H at §49: “There will be cases (if, for instance, there is a history of domestic or family abuse) where it would be unsafe to the child or the parent for the wider family to be involved in the life of the child, or even made aware of the existence of the child. There will be cases where cultural or religious considerations may materially impact on the issue of disclosure.