Case No. ZC96-22

11.If the birth mother qualifies as a parent within the meaning of the ACA 2002, she should be an automatic respondent to this application (r14.3 Family Procedure Rules 2010) and her consent must be either given or dispensed with (ss 47 and 52 ACA) before any order can be made. 12.A court order made on 25th May 2009 by the Presiding Judge at the court in Country A included provisions terminating the mother’s parental responsibility with her consent. Dr. N, an expert in family law in Country A instructed in these proceedings, has provided a comprehensive opinion that this order was valid and final under the law in Country A. Not only did the order terminate the parental responsibility of the birth mother, but it also granted parental responsibility to the applicants and PF1 and 2. Although it appears from the documents that the mother initially contested the proceedings, the order terminating her parental responsibility was made by agreement, and there is a document to that effect, signed by the mother and her legal representative.13.Dr. N also states that, according to the law of Country A, parental responsibility terminates on the 18th birthday of the child as it does here. 14.For the purposes of our domestic adoption law, a parent is defined in s52(6) ACA as a ‘parent having parental responsibility’. Parental responsibility is governed by s2 Children Act 1989 (CA 1989). Where the child’s parents were not married at the time of the birth, the mother shall have parental responsibility (s2(2)), and the father shall have it if he acquires it in accordance with the provisions of s4. Whilst there is provision for the parental responsibility of a father to be terminated, there is no corresponding statutory provision in respect of a birth mother, save by the making of an adoption order. 15.Under Article 16 of the 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children 1996, the attribution or extinction of parental responsibility by operation of law, without the intervention of a judicial or administrative authority, is governed by the law of the habitual residence of the child (Article 16(1)). Parental responsibility which exists under the law of the State of the child’s habitual residence subsists after a change of that habitual residence to another State (Article 16(3)). It is notable that there is no reference here to the termination of parental responsibility. Article 4 provides that the Convention does not apply to decisions on adoption or measures preparatory to it. Whilst the decision as to parental responsibility may not have been part of a decision on adoption or a measure preparatory to it, (if it was, the Convention would not apply under Article 4), the provisions of Article 16 do not apply to cases where parental responsibility has been terminated by judicial intervention. 16.It is thus to the common law that the court must look when determining whether the Country A court order can be recognised. In her skeleton argument Ms Reed for the applicant submitted that the effect of the order was that the mother had no parental responsibility in English law, and that there was no requirement to join her as a party. Ms Daly, for the local authority submitted that because there is no provision in English law to terminate a mother’s parental responsibility that the court should take a cautious approach. 17.In