FD24P00634 - [2025] EWHC 900 (Fam)

Mr Liebrecht submits on behalf of the Local Authority that the Court should not require the Local Authority to do any more to try to identify and locate Y’s birth father so as to give him notice of intent to place for adoption nor should it require it to make enquiries of the extended family. He referred me to the leading authority of A, B & C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers And Relatives) [2020] EWCA Civ 41 and the tests set out therein which I discuss further below. He points out that there are key factors in this case which support the conclusions which the Local Authority have reached, including that it has not been possible to identify the father and it seems most unlikely it will be possible to do so. He submitted that the father appears to be a child without parental responsibility and that there was no family life with the mother; it being a fleeting encounter which gave rise to Y’s conception. He also emphasises that X does not appear to be close to her extended family in South Africa and he notes the likely delays which would occur if the Local Authority was to try to identify relatives in that jurisdiction which would be a process of some complexity and uncertainty (and which would have to involve at least the following steps: identifying the relatives, ascertaining willingness to care for the child, making an assessment in the foreign jurisdiction, satisfying the court under Schedule 2 paragraph 19 of the Children Act 1989 that the child can live outside the jurisdiction and obtaining any mirror orders necessary in South Africa). He submits that such a process could descend into the grotesque given the potential impact on X and the uncertainty that process would bring.

I should record that the Local Authority accepts that the Part 19 application was delayed and should have been made earlier, but thankfully that has not led to any particular difficulties in this case. I note however the remarks of Peel J in A Local Authority v JK [2021] EWHC 33 (Fam) at paragraphs 48-54 on the potential prejudicial effects of delay and the need for promptness in these cases which should ordinarily be followed in any such case.

On behalf of X Ms Chapman submits that X has given a consistent account of the historical position in terms of Y’s conception and X has been clear throughout that she believed it was in Y’s best interests for him to be adopted. Ms Chapman emphasises that X has taken a great deal of time to consider her decision and her position is in line with the Guardian’s analysis of the position. X believes that it is in Y’s best interests for the process to conclude as soon as possible in order to provide certainty for Y so that he can move forward with his life in the care of his current carers, with whom he is thriving.

The Guardian’s analysis is contained in her report dated 27 March 2025. In preparation for that report the Guardian met with X, spoke with Y’s Social Worker, saw Y in his current placement and spoke with his current carers. X told the Guardian that while she was managing well now, she was not in a position to meet all of Y’s emotional, as well as his physical, needs. X said she felt strongly that Y deserved to be raised by people who wanted to be parents. X explained to the Guardian that she did not have a close relationship with her extended family in South Africa and the relationship with them was quite limited. X felt that contacting them and requesting that they care for Y would be the equivalent of asking a stranger to do so.

The Guardian reported that Y was developing extremely well and meeting his milestones. He was described as a very sociable child. She had observed him with one of his carers and he presented as very settled and happy within her care. The carers understood the difficult position which X was in and said they would promote contact with X in the future if this was sought. The Guardian noted that X and her parents had been supported with preparing memory books for Y including information about South Africa and their culture. Having applied the various factors identified by the Court in the case of A, B & C the Guardian indicated that she was in agreement with the Local Authority’s position that it should not take any further steps to identify the father or any extended family. The Guardian emphasised that this decision was a significant one with a lifelong impact for Y but it was better for Y to remain with his current carers and have the opportunity to have his needs met permanently.