Case No. FD21F00053

was impressed with seal of the High Court. The order dated 25 October 2021 is headed “In the High Court of Justice”. 21.However, it would have been wrong to have allowed Ruth to issue this application in the High Court. This is because FPR rule 5.4 provides:‘(1) Where both the Family Court and the High Court have jurisdiction to deal with a matter, the proceedings relating to that matter must be started in the Family Court.(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply where –(a) proceedings relating to the same parties are already being heard in the High Court;(b) any rule, other enactment or Practice Direction provides otherwise; or(c) the court otherwise directs’The President’s Guidance - Jurisdiction of the Family Court: Allocation of cases within the Family Court to High Court Judge level and transfer of cases from the Family Court to the High Court dated 24 May 2021 does not require this application for declaratory relief to be issued in the High Court. This is because the application is made under Part III of the Family Law Act 1986 and is therefore excepted from Item No. 3 of the Schedule to the Guidance.22.Therefore, the application had to be issued in the Family Court. The use of the High Court seal on the issued application, and the heading of the order of 25 October 2021, does not affect that requirement. I heard the case sitting in the Family Court; I give this judgment in the Family Court; and the order giving effect to this judgment shall be made in the Family Court.23.An application under s55A of the 1986 Act is governed procedurally by FPR Part 8 Chapter 5. FPR rule 8.1 states:“Subject to rules 8.13 and 8.24, applications to which this Part applies must be made in accordance with the Part 19 procedure.”24.In Dunkley v Dunkley & Another [2018] 2 FLR 258 I somehow overlooked the terms of rule 8.1 but at para 3 surmised that the Part 19 procedure applied by virtue of the reference to aspects of it in rules 8.20(3) and (6).25.Rules 8.13 and 8.24 are not relevant to this application. Therefore it is made pursuant to, and governed by, the Part 19 procedure.26.An application under the Part 19 procedure is heard in private under FPR rule 27.10, although members of the press and legal bloggers are entitled to attend under rule 27.11. I duly heard the application in private on Microsoft Teams, and no journalist or legal blogger attended.27.Had a member of the press or a legal blogger attended I consider that they could have reported everything that they heard during the proceedings. There are no minor children affected even peripherally by the application. It is impossible to see on what basis a reporting restriction order could have been made. In H v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1646 at para 21 the Master of the Rolls stated:‘(1) The general rule is that the names of the parties to an action are included in orders and judgments of the court.(2) There is no general exception for cases where private matters are in issue.(3) An order for anonymity or any other order restraining the publication of the normally reportable details of a case is a derogation from the principle of open justice and an interference with the Article 10 rights of the public at large.(4) Accordingly, where the court is asked to make any such order, it should only do so after closely scrutinising the application, and considering whether a degree of restraint on publication is necessary, and, if it is, whether there is any less restrictive or more acceptable alternative than that which is sought.(5) Where the court is asked to restrain the publication of the names of the parties and/or the subject matter of the claim, on the ground that such restraint is necessary under Article 8, the question is whether there is sufficient general, public interest in publishing a report of the proceedings which identifies a party and/or the normally reportable details to justify any resulting curtailment of his right and his family's right to respect for their private and family life.’28.In my judgment there are no aspects of this case whereby the privacy right in Article 8 trumps the principle of open justice in Article 6 and the general Article 10 rights of the public at large.29.If the case could have been fully reported had journalists attended, then any suggestion that this judgment should be anonymised is untenable. In any event, I cannot discern any good reason to depart from the principle of open justice which is implicit in a full judgment. To anonymise the actors would be to provide a disembodied version with all the disadvantages identified by Lord Steyn in Re S (A Child)(Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593, HL at [34] and Lord Rodger in re Guardian News and Media Ltd at para [63]. 30.I record that Ruth, Constance, Simon and Jane were all given by me the opportunity to make any submissions in writing opposing the publication of this judgment in full without anonymisation. Ruth, on behalf of all members of the family, sent an email stating that ‘we do not wish to make any submissions in writing as to the judge’s intentions’.31.Therefore consistently with the principles I outlined in BT v CU [2021] EWFC 87 at [113] and in A v M [2021] EWFC 89 at [104] – [106], I shall give this judgment in full without anonymisation.32.Having dealt with these procedural matters I now turn to the substance of the application. The background 33.I have received written evidence from Ruth, Constance, Simon and Jane. I also received oral evidence from Ruth and Constance. 34.The evidence has established the following facts to my satisfaction. 35.Ruth was born on 5 November 1960 to Constance. Ruth was born in England and has resided here all her life. She is, and has always been, domiciled in England. 36.Constance was born in 1941 to Orthodox Jewish parents. In 1959, aged just 18, she had begun a passionate, but very risky, relationship with Patrick, an Irish Catholic, then aged 27. She fell pregnant by him, but he did not wish to marry her. They parted and she did not hear from him again for about 29 years.37.Constance needed to find a husband quickly as a termination of the pregnancy was impossible – abortion was then a criminal offence. The idea of putting the new-born child up for adoption was unthinkable. Equally, to be known as bearing a child out wedlock would cover her in shame in her community. Her life was a maelstrom of painful dilemmas.38.Constance described to me how she ‘disappeared’ when she discovered she was pregnant in order to avoid her family finding out the truth. She found and quickly married Dennis (born in 1938) who offered to stand as father to Ruth. To get her parents’ consent to the marriage (which was then required as she was under 21) she told everyone that Dennis was Ruth’s father, when she knew Patrick to be the father. This deceit was an absolute necessity as Constance’s parents would not have supported her in any way had they known that Constance was having an illegitimate child.39.Therefore on 12 December 1960 Dennis provided the necessary information to register Ruth’s birth. By then Dennis and Constance had married. Thus, the certificate states that Dennis and Constance had the same surname and lived at the same address. It declares Dennis to be the father, even though Dennis knew full well that he was not.40.Ruth was raised to believe that Dennis was her father and for most of her childhood she believed that this was the truth. Constance told me that unfortunately Dennis was seriously flawed; he was abusive and unfaithful. When Ruth was 15, Dennis told her he was not her true father. This was an overpowering revelation for Ruth. 41.Shortly thereafter, Constance and Dennis divorced and Constance later remarried Edward Chesterman, now also dead. Ruth carried the truth about her parentage as a dark secret until she was in her 40s. It was a source of great shame, and even Edward was not made aware of it. It was never spoken about. This silence was in part due to the societal implications of being an illegitimate child, even in the late 20th century, and in part due to Ruth’s personal trauma suffered as a result of the revelation. It was only when in training to become a therapist that Ruth went to therapy herself and was empowered to confront the issue. She spoke to Constance and was able to find Patrick online. She discovered that he was living and running a business in Ireland.42.Ruth telephoned Patrick for the first time in March 2004, and he immediately acknowledged her as his daughter. He explained to Ruth that he had previously tried to find Constance and the child he suspected they had had together, but had been untruthfully told by Constance’s family that she had emigrated to America. Patrick told Simon, his son (born in 1970), about Ruth and how he was certain she was his child. Patrick had by this point also spoken to Constance, who confirmed to him that she had been secretly pregnant, and that Ruth was his child. Soon thereafter, Ruth was introduced to Patrick’s children, her half-siblings, Simon and Jane (born in 1965) who embraced her as a sister. The three have shared a close relationship since. Patrick’s wife (Jane and Simon’s mother) Barbara was slightly slower to come around as she had never been told of the existence of Constance, but she now sees Ruth as family. 43.Patrick died in 2008 following major spinal surgery. I have been told, and I accept, that he was immensely proud to be Ruth’s father and saw her as nothing less than his daughter. The application 44.Ruth’s application for a declaration of parentage under the Family Law Act 1986, section 55A was issued on 22 September 2021. As explained above, Ruth wishes to have Patrick recognised in law as her father and for him to replace Dennis on her birth certificate.45.This application has not been made until now primarily because Constance was only informed last year that Dennis had died. Until that point, she held a well-justified fear that making a parentage application would require him to be notified. That would make him aware of Constance and Ruth’s location, which they feared could put them in peril.46.Ruth’s application is supported by Jane and Simon, and by his widow, Barbara, who was the executor of Patrick’s estate. Constance also confirms Ruth’s version of events. Both Jane and Simon make clear the importance of Ruth being recognised in law as their sibling so future generations can see their true heritage, and because it is something their father would have wanted.