Local authority succeeds in application to protect mother and baby’s privacy
Background to the case
This case in the High Court Family Division, involving a six-month-old child known as D, highlights the complex balance between family notification, the mother’s right to privacy and the welfare of the child.
Judith Pepper, barrister at Coram Chambers, represented the local authority, who applied under the inherent jurisdiction for a decision about notifying third parties of D’s birth and the mother’s wish for adoption.
The circumstances were both sensitive and distressing. The mother, a refugee from country Z escaping for safety reasons, had become pregnant following an alleged rape after her drink was spiked. She concealed the pregnancy from her family. When D was born, the mother wished to maintain strict confidentiality and sought for D to be adopted by a suitable family.
Legal principles and the court’s approach
The court considered the established principles from Re A, B & C [2020] EWCA Civ 41. The judge weighed the mother’s rights to privacy against the interests and potential rights of her husband, extended family, and the child. Central to the case was whether these individuals should be notified of D’s birth and proposed adoption.
After hearing the evidence, the court decided against notification. The judge found that informing the mother’s husband, his family, her own parents and siblings, wider maternal relatives, or the biological father (whose identity remains unknown) would be inappropriate. Such disclosure was likely to cause severe psychological, social, and cultural harm to the mother, including risk of ostracism and mental health difficulties.
Welfare and long-term stability
The court considered whether a family placement could be an alternative to adoption. It concluded that this was not realistic.
The mother’s involvement in choosing an adoptive placement that reflects D’s cultural background was a factor. She is also helping with life story work to prepare D for adoption.
The judge acknowledged the impact on D of not having contact with her extended family in country Z, and recognised the importance of her cultural heritage. However, the court was satisfied that maintaining confidentiality served D’s welfare and long-term stability.
The decision
The judge offered sympathy to the mother for the trauma she has endured and commended her bravery. The judgment noted that the mother’s actions were motivated by love and a wish to secure the best possible future for D.
The court granted the local authority’s applications, permitting the lack of notification to the family or the unknown biological father.
Read the full judgment here or at the bottom of this page.
