Case No. NE21P00484-&-NE21P07404

12.Ms L was born in 1963; her parents were unmarried teenagers. A note in Ms L’s adoption records reads as follows:“… [the biological mother] would have married the putative father if she had had a chance. But the young man is practicing Roman Catholic as are all his family and the priest was consulted and he advised against it….. ”In a form generated by the relevant Adoption Society in June 1963, setting out the bare facts of the case, against the question: “Why is the child offered for adoption?”, the following was recorded: “My parents think I’m too young to keep a baby”. And later: “I think adoption is best for the baby” (this last comment was signed by the birth mother).13.Ms L was accordingly placed for adoption at 6 weeks old, and adopted in 1964; she had a successful adoption. She reports that:“My adoptive parents were open with me about the fact that I had been adopted and gave me as much information as they knew about the circumstances surrounding my adoption… My adoptive parents knew about and supported my efforts to locate my birth parents.”Ms L’s adoptive parents have now both died. 14.Ms L first made contact with her birth mother in the mid-1980s, and for a period of time they communicated; indeed, it is said that Ms L developed a reasonable relationship with her and her maternal birth family. This ended when Ms L’s birth mother indicated that she wished the contact to cease. In 2018 Ms L’s birth mother died. In or about 2009, Ms L’s birth mother had given Ms L the details of her birth father, PJ. Ms L made contact with him, and he responded to her warmly. They quickly established a mutual acceptance of their probable biological link, and PJ’s family welcomed Ms L into their family. Ms L became close with the family, and they remain so. Unexpectedly, PJ died in 2020. He died intestate; his sister, Ms T, who I joined as a respondent to this application (as mentioned above), is administering his affairs.15.Interestingly, PJ’s main hobby was genealogy. He had researched family history for years, particularly on the maternal side. PJ’s maternal grandfather (Ms L’s great grandfather) was Italian; his family had emigrated from Italy to the North East of England in 1896 and had a large family of ten children. Through researching the family tree, PJ made many connections around the world with the Italian side of the family. PJ published a family history document for the benefit of the Italian family; materially, following his introduction to Ms L, he named Ms L and her children in the publication as members of his own family. It is no great surprise that Ms L has been able to identify very strong personal character traits in herself which she recognises that she shares with members of PJ’s Italian family. It is unlikely to be a coincidence that in her chosen career, she has been drawn in many different ways to Italy.16.I am satisfied that this application is of very real importance to Ms L. She explains this as follows:“A Declaration of Parentage is personally a very important step for me as it strongly relates to my identity. My bloodline connection is important in terms of both my long-term psychological and material welfare.”17.In a more recent statement, in which she sets out her detailed and thoughtful reflections of her situation, Ms L says this:“Technically, my locus standi in relation to my application is not just as applicant, but also adopted child. As such, I am the host of the complex legal and factual situation of adoption; factually, I was born of my birth parents but I am also the legal child of my adoptive parents. I have grown up knowing I have a foot in both camps, each as formative as the other in terms of formulating my identity for myself. However, having been adopted in the 1960s, I am also part of a model of broken connection, which has in part, been decided upon through statute, decisions of the court and by rules relating to birth registration. Adoption in the 1960s very often responded to the stigma of illegitimacy and the circumstances meant adoptees were unable to have any voice in this process. Now adoption is far more open and inclusive; birth families are acknowledged through open contact and the child’s welfare is paramount (Adoption and Children Act 2002).As an adult, I am no longer considered a child of course, but being an adopted child never ceases; childhood may end, but adoptees continually define themselves by this identity because adoption is a continuous feature of their identity.…Since my adoption, I have been a grateful recipient of a series of legislative rights, that have allowed adoptees to gain more knowledge about their origins, entitling me to information on my original birth certificate, and receiving counselling before accessing that information (Children Act 1975 and Adoption Act 1976).In pursing the knowledge of my origins, I am hoping to create stability for my identity. The All Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry into Creating Stable Adoptive Families (2019) highlights that adoptive stability (and thus welfare) involves the importance of knowing. Having knowledge confirmed may go some way to addressing the loss and pain many adoptees experience, referred to in literature as ‘The Primal Wound’ or various forms of embodied pre-cognitive trauma that is hidden in the body well into adulthood.” 18.Ms L further explains that a practical benefit of a declaration of parentage for her will be her ability to acquire dual citizenship.19.This takes me to the second issue identified above (§1(b)). Ms L has been able to lay before the court a considerable body of evidence which she maintains demonstrates that PJ is indeed her father:i)PJ was explicitly referenced (by name) as the “putative father” in a number of adoption documents generated in 1963/1964;ii)Ms L was introduced to PJ by her biological mother, and explicitly identified by her as her birth father;iii)PJ identified himself as Ms L’s birth father when they first ‘met’ through social media. In their subsequent correspondence, he was able independently to confirm and verify much factual information about the circumstances of Ms L’s conception and adoption which was contained in the adoption file;iv)Ms L has been able to produce in support of her application, extensive conversations on social media between herself and her PJ;v)As it happens, and most important of all, Ms L and PJ had agreed, before PJ’s death, that they would undergo DNA testing. On his death, at post mortem, and with the agreement of PJ’s family, samples were taken from PJ, and these have demonstrated (as the expert evidence shows) “very strong support” that PJ is indeed Ms L’s birth father.