Adoption — Adoption order — Arrangements for adoption — Mother wishing to place child for adoption at birth — Mother not wanting to inform extended family or father of existence of child — Whether local authority under duty to investigate family members as potential carers — Adoption and Children Act 2002

In re C (A Child)(Adoption: Local Authority’s Duty) [2007] EWCA Civ 1206

CA: Thorpe, Arden and Lawrence Collins LJJ: 23 November 2007

S 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 did not impose a duty on the local authority to make inquiries of a child’s extended family or father about the possibility of their providing long-term care in circumstances where the child had been conceived as a result of a fleeting relationship and the mother wished to place the child for adoption.

The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in allowing an appeal brought by the mother against the decision of a judge in a county court on 28 September 2007 that the local authority was under such a duty.

Once the judge had made his order, there was a misunderstanding as a result of which the local authority wrote to the mother’s parents seeking an interview but not giving the reason. The parents discovered that the mother had given birth and contacted the local authority to offer to assist in resolving the situation. They did not, however, take part in the proceedings.

ARDEN LJ said that before the 2002 Act, the courts had made it clear that, while in general terms the views of a father of a newborn child should be obtained before the child was placed for adoption, they did not require the consent of the father to be obtained where the mother and father had only had a fleeting relationship. The question was whether the 2002 Act had changed that position, as the judge held in the court below. The question in the present case was one of statutory interpretation. It was necessary to go back to s 1 and particularly s-s (2) which made the child’s welfare the paramount consideration. The result was that s 1 was child-centred, and not mother centred. When a decision needed to be made about the long-term care of the child, whom a mother wished to be adopted, there was no duty to make inquiries of an absolute kind. There was only a duty to make inquiries if it was in the interests of the child to do so. The immediate question with which the guardian and the local authority were concerned was who would look after the child on a long-term basis. The enquiries had to be focused on that result. The court was a public authority for the purpose of s 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and it would be unlawful for the court to act in a manner which was incompatible with the rights conferred by the European Convention on Human Rights. In the present case the father did not have a right to respect for his family life with the child because he had no family life with the child. He had never lived with the mother or expressed any commitment to the child. He could not have done so because he did not know of the child’s existence. It was not a violation of a Convention right to deprive him of the possibility of obtaining a right to respect family life with the child. The father therefore had no Convention right and accordingly it was unnecessary to ask whether art 8(2) applied. The grandparents did have such a right, but they would be able to obtain the information by making their own application under the Children Act 1989. It was submitted on behalf of the local authority that the ordinary rule should be that the near family and father should be identified and informed unless the court was satisfied that such inquiries would be inappropriate. The court should not require a preference to be given as a matter of policy to the natural family of a child. S 1 did not impose any such policy. Rather, it required the interests of the child to be considered.

Lawrence Collins and Thorpe LJJ delivered concurring judgments.

Appeal allowed.

Appearances: The mother, the local authority and the child’s guardian were all represented by counsel and solicitors.

Reported by: Geraldine Fainer, barrister