G (Declaration of Parentage: Removal of Person Identified as Mother from Birth Certificate) (No 2)

On the last occasion this was before me I gave a full judgment, which I approved on 4^th October. In that I concluded that NG was the biological and psychological father of a child who in these proceedings I am calling Naomi. I concluded that RB was Naomi’s gestational mother with a donated egg, and that AV, whilst she had been registered as Naomi’s mother on the English birth certificate and became her psychological mother, had no genetic or gestational connection with her. I made a declaration pursuant to Section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 that the applicant, NG, was Naomi’s father. The consequence of that has been that the Registrar General has amended the Register to now show NG as Naomi’s father.

On the last occasion I declined to go the next step, which was to make the declaration that

Following on from my judgment, the order provided for Naomi’s guardian, Ms Roddy, to communicate with AV via family members in order to inform her of the outcome of the last hearing and the court’s desire that she engage with the process. At that point in time it was believed that AV and Naomi were still in Greece, she having left Bulgaria, according to the authorities, in or about February of this year. In compliance with the order, Ms Roddy sent letters to AV, which seemed to initially gain no response, but early in October it came to the father’s attention first of all that AV had married the man who is her older son’s father and that she had made an application for him to adopt Naomi, either alone or jointly with her. The understanding of the father is that such an order, which I think was made in early October, can only follow on from a period of six weeks having preceded it, which suggests that the application was made in Bulgaria in about mid-August, which would tie in chronologically with AV perhaps having received the letter from Ms Roddy informing her of the outcome of the last hearing. The inference therefore is that in response to information about the outcome and the declarations I made, but also in response to my invitation to AV to co-operate in these proceedings, she has done diametrically the opposite and has married and has then issued an application to adopt Naomi, thus potentially eradicating NG permanently from Naomi’s life and permanently removing the legal status that he has in connection with her as a result of being declared to be her father. As I understand it, the current order in Bulgaria is effectively a provisional or nisi order which can be made permanent, and indeed is due to be made permanent at some point in the relatively near future.

I had listed a further hearing in this matter to review the developments and in particular whether the psychological mother had been traced and whether she had decided to engage in the proceedings, which I believe is listed for next week. As a result of the imminent final adoption hearing in Bulgaria, I agreed to convene an earlier hearing to consider what orders should be made, in particular to assist the Bulgarian court in understanding the legal position in this court and to assist it in pausing, potentially, in the proceedings before it to establish a fuller understanding of how Naomi has come to be subject to that application before the Bulgarian court. It certainly is not my intention to trespass in any way upon the Bulgarian court’s jurisdiction because the Bulgarian court has its own jurisdiction, in relation in

Contact was made with AV’s adult son and I think also with a lady who is his girlfriend, and also with perhaps AV’s sister – but most importantly, earlier today Ms Roddy received a voicemail message from a woman purporting to be AV, now known as AM following her marriage, asking Ms Roddy to call her. Ms Roddy did so, and had a conversation the contents of which are summarised in an e-mail which I have been shown. In that call, AV said that she intended to remain in Bulgaria, and that Naomi is in school. She repeated the allegations of – or at least intimated at allegations of – sexual abuse made against the father, which were investigated by police and social services in the UK, and which were considered to be without foundation. She made it blindingly clear that my invitation to her to participate in these proceedings was rejected, and that she intended to litigate anything in relation to Naomi in the courts in Bulgaria.

Dr George, on behalf of NG, supported by Ms Carew on behalf of Ms Roddy, invite me to now make the declaration that AV is not Naomi’s mother and that RB is her birth mother. That would have the consequence of the birth certificate being further amended, which would be transmitted to Bulgaria so that the Bulgarian authorities’ records, which appear to be based on the original English birth certificate, would be corrected. That, it is hoped, would protect Naomi from a final adoption order being made given that it would be seen that AV is not in fact her biological or birth mother.

In addition, an order requiring AV to return Naomi to this jurisdiction was made last year and has been outstanding for all of that period of time. The police had declined to become involved because NG was not named on the birth certificate. They are now engaged and there is the possibility that the CPS will agree that a European arrest warrant should be issued. The Hague Child Abduction Convention proceedings, which were initiated on the basis I think originally of the court’s rights of custody in Bulgaria, were transferred to Greece and are now being transferred back to Bulgaria. Although the Court of Appeal in Re S (Abduction: Hague Convention or BIIA) [2018] EWCA Civ 1226 said earlier this year that in most cases where the Brussels IIA Regulation applied, return orders should not be made by the English courts, but rather the 1980 Hague Convention process should be left to run its course in that country, that does not, in my view, apply to this case. That dealt with the generality of cases; this is a case unique in the issues raised by it, and in any event return orders were made right at the outset of these proceedings when AV fled England in October 2017.

So it seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate to seek to deploy a return order in the