YV (No1) (Adoption; Notification of Relatives; Kazakhstan), Re

This is an application by a Local Authority for directions under the inherent jurisdiction as to whether to notify maternal and paternal relatives of a proposed adoption with a view to exploring the possibility of the child being placed with a member of their extended family.

The child in question, YV, is nearly 11 months old. The child is represented today before me by Ms Joanne Brown KC, and she is instructed, ultimately, through YV’s Children’s Guardian. The applicant Local Authority, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, is represented by Mr Daniel Longe, Solicitor Advocate, and I am very grateful both to Ms Brown KC and to Mr Longe for their skeleton arguments and position statements in this case.

Neither parent has attended today. The parents, TR, the mother, and PV, the father, are both from Kazakhstan, and they are both Kazakh nationals. As I will describe below, both parents have been clear from YV’s birth that they wished the child to be placed for adoption. They were both referred to solicitors by the Local Authority, and the solicitors to whom the father was referred confirmed that he did not want the wider family to be notified. The mother met with her solicitors, but no response was ever provided through them.

This application was issued by the Local Authority on 14 February 2025, and the first hearing came before, I think, although the order does not bear the judge’s name, HHJ Hilder sitting as a Deputy High Court judge on 24 February. The parents did not attend that hearing, although the judge was satisfied on that occasion that they had been served. Documents had been posted through the letterbox of their last known address and sent to them by email. Directions were given for the filing of evidence, and the matter listed for today.

HHJ Hilder’s order was served in a Russian translation on the parents’ last known address. Since then, it has become clear from disclosure provided by the Home Office that the parents were not at that address but had already returned to Kazakhstan. However, the parties have also been provided through the Home Office disclosure with further email addresses for the parents, and I am satisfied that proper attempts have been made to serve the order of 24 February on the parents and to notify them of today’s hearing. I have checked, and there is no record of the parents seeking to contact the Court. The link for today’s hearing has been sent to the parents by email by the Court to the email address for them that has been provided to the Court by other parties. The parents have not attended.

I am satisfied the parents have been properly informed of today’s hearing, and they are choosing not to engage with the court process. I reach that conclusion both from their absence today, but also from their absence from the previous hearing and from their non-engagement with the solicitors with whom they were put in touch by the Local Authority. Given the importance of this matter, and the urgency for YV of progressing the adoption proceedings, I am satisfied it is appropriate, and in the interests of justice, that I should deal with matters today notwithstanding the absence of the parents.

Both parents are Kazakh nationals. They met in Kazakhstan and began their relationship in about 2019. The relationship, I am told, was not approved of by the mother’s family, who apparently wished for her to marry someone else. In February 2023, the parents applied for temporary six-month worker visas to enter the UK, and these were granted. In March 2023, the parents, whom I understand both to be Muslim, underwent an Islamic marriage ceremony. That was in Kazakhstan. They arrived in the UK on 15 March 2023 on separate flights. On 10 August 2023, the parents submitted asylum applications, but these were subsequently withdrawn on 21 February 2025. It appears from the disclosure provided by the Home Office that no supporting documents were ever submitted to the Home Office, and neither parent underwent an asylum interview.

In May 2024, a referral was made to South Greenwich Children’s Centre by the local midwifery team. The mother, at that stage, was 32 weeks pregnant. Both parents stated the pregnancy was unplanned and that if they had known about it earlier, the mother would have sought a termination. Even before YV was born, both parents expressed the wish for the child to be placed for adoption, and they have consistently repeated that wish since their birth. Shortly after YV was born, the mother signed a section 20 agreement giving consent for YV to be accommodated by the Local Authority, and, since then, YV has been in the Local Authority’s care. The parents subsequently signed forms A100 and A103 giving advance consent to adoption and YV’s placement, those forms being signed on 10 and 12 December 2024.

The issue before me today is whether the Local Authority should be permitted not to notify members of the maternal and paternal extended families of YV’s birth, or whether contact should be made with a view to exploring whether there are any members of those families suitable and willing for YV to be placed with them. The issue has arisen because both parents have expressed reluctance for members of their extended families to be contacted. The witness statement of the social worker in this case, recounts that when she spoke to both parents on 3 October 2024, they did not wish for their families to be contacted. Her statement proceeds as follows:

“I first spoke with Ms R and Mr V on 3 October 2024, and they remained consistent in their wishes for YV to be placed for adoption and did not wish for their families to be contacted.

Ms R has been very clear she does not wish for her family to know about YV. She remains concerned about the repercussions of this on her, as she is a Muslim and YV was born out of wedlock. When asked about the consequences of her family finding out Ms R has had a baby and is in a relationship with Mr V, she expressed she does not know what would happen but believes they may be aggressive towards her.

Mr V shared that his mother remains unaware of YV’s birth and he ‘does not think she would be happy about the birth’. He went on to mention his mother would be against this as Ms R’s family are not happy with their relationship owing to their desires for Ms R to marry someone else”.

The father made further observations through his solicitors, TV Edwards, which the Local Authority had funded. In an email dated 4 December 2024, a solicitor of TV Edwards confirmed the following:

“He [that is to say, the father] instructs that his family and his partner’s family do not get along and did not agree the relationship because his partner was due to marry someone else. He informed me that his partner is also in contact with her family, they do not know she is here with Mr V, and they have hidden their relationship from certainly her side of the family. He instructed his partner’s family had threatened him previously when they found out about the relationship, and, as I understand it, that is the basis of his asylum application.

He instructed that because YV was born out of wedlock, he did not think either family would want to care for the child, as sex before marriage is frowned upon in their culture. When I tried to explore this further with him, he instructed that certainly he did not think his mother would be able to care for YV as he is the one supporting his family financially. He said it was possible that YV would be at risk because they were born out of wedlock, but he couldn’t be sure. He was clear that even if his mother was contacted about YV, he didn’t think she would be able to care given he is her only support”.

This is essentially the totality of the evidence that is available regarding the parents’ views on notification of the wider family, and neither parent has been in contact with the Local Authority since 30 January 2025.

In terms of the extended family, it appears that the mother’s mother was born in January 1979 and is 46 years old. The Local Authority has her full name and date of birth from the Home Office disclosure. According to the mother, the maternal grandmother is apparently in poor health and unable to support her family, and the mother had been providing financial assistance for her from the UK. In addition, the mother appears to have had a stepfather who went to prison for fraud, and she has two sisters who are, I understand, aged 10 and 18, and does not have any other family who could care for YV.

The father’s mother is older. It appears she was born in April 1966 and is aged 59. Again, the Local Authority have her full name and date of birth. She has hearing issues and was supported by the father as she has been unable to work at times. The father also has two sisters. One is married with children, which the father says will prevent her from caring for YV. The other sister is 12. Again, the father’s position is that there is nobody in Kazakhstan in the wider family who could care for YV.

The Local Authority have obtained legal advice from a Kazakh-qualified lawyer in relation to a number of matters, and he has confirmed:

The relevant law on notification is found in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case Re A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] EWCA (Civ) 41, a judgment of Peter Jackson LJ. At paragraph 59 of that judgment, the Court said as follows:

“Pausing at this point, this body of authority at first instance and on appeal affirms that there is a discretion to be exercised by the local authority and by the court as to whether fathers and other relatives should be notified of the birth of a child. The discretion requires the identification and balancing up of all relevant factors. While the mother’s right to confidentiality is important it is not absolute. The presence or absence of family life is an important, though not a decisive feature and where it exists strong countervailing factors are required to justify withholding knowledge of the existence of the child and the proceedings. The tenor of the authorities is that in most cases, notification will be appropriate and the absence of notification will be the exception; but each case will in the end depend on its facts. In each case, the welfare of the child was regarded as an important factor but, significantly, there is no suggestion that the exercise of the discretion is governed by the paramountcy principle”.

The factors to be considered by the court when determining this issue were set out by Peter Jackson LJ at paragraph 89 of his judgment.

“The principles governing decisions (by local authorities as adoption agencies or by the court) as to whether a putative father or a relative should be informed of the existence of a child who might be adopted can be summarised in this way:

1.

The law allows for ‘fast-track’ adoption with the consent of all those with parental responsibility, so in some cases, the mother alone. Where she opposes notification being given to the child’s father or relatives, her right to respect for her private life is engaged and can only be infringed where it is necessary to do so to protect the interests of others.

2.

The profound importance of the adoption decision for the child and potentially for other family members is clearly capable of supplying a justification for overriding the mother’s request. Whether it does so will depend upon the individual circumstances of the case.

3.

The decision should be prioritised and the process characterised by urgency and thoroughness.

4.

The decision-maker’s first task is to establish the facts as clearly as possible, mindful of the often limited and one-sided nature of the information available. The confidential relinquishment of a child for adoption is an unusual event, and the reasons for it must be respectfully scrutinised so that the interests of others are protected. In fairness to those other individuals, the account that is given by the person seeking confidentiality cannot be taken at face value. All information that can be discovered without compromising confidentiality should therefore be gathered, and a first-hand account from the person seeking confidentiality will normally be sought. The investigation should enable broad conclusions to be drawn about the relative weight to be given to the factors that must inform the decision.

5.

Once the facts have been investigated, the task is to strike a fair balance between the various interests involved. The welfare of the child is an important factor, but it is not the paramount consideration.

6.

There is no single test for distinguishing between cases in which notification should and should not be given, but the case law shows that these factors will be relevant when reaching a decision:

(i)

Parental responsibility. The fact that a father has parental responsibility by marriage or otherwise entitles him to give or withhold consent to adoption and gives him automatic party status in any proceedings that might lead to adoption. Compelling reasons are therefore required before the withholding of notification can be justified.

(ii)

Article 8 rights. Whether the father, married or unmarried, or the relative have an established or potential family life with the mother or the child, the right to a fair hearing is engaged and strong reasons are required before the withholding of notification can be justified.

(iii)

The substance of the relationships. Aside from the presence or absence of parental responsibility and of family life rights, an assessment must be made of the substance of the relationship between the parents, the circumstances of the conception, and the significance of relatives. The purpose is to ensure that those who are necessarily silent are given a notional voice so as to identify the possible strengths and weaknesses of any argument that they might make. Put another way, with what degree of objective justification might such a person complain if they later discovered they had been excluded from the decision? The answer will differ as between a father with whom the mother has had a fleeting encounter and one with whom she has had a substantial relationship, and as between members of the extended family who are close to the parents and those who are more distant.

(iv)

The likelihood of a family placement being a realistic alternative to adoption. This is of particular importance to the child’s lifelong welfare as it may determine whether or not adoption is necessary. An objective view, going beyond the say-so of the person seeking confidentiality, should be taken about whether a family member may or may not be a potential carer. Where a family placement is unlikely to be worth investigating or where notification may cause significant harm to those notified, this factor will speak in favour of maintaining confidentiality; anything less than that and it will point the other way.

(v)

The physical, psychological or social impact on the mother or on others of notification being given. Where this would be severe, for example because of fear arising from rape or violence, or because of possible consequences such as ostracism or family breakdown, or because of significant mental health vulnerability, these must weigh heavily in the balancing exercise. On the other hand, excessive weight should not be given to short-term difficulties and to less serious situations involving embarrassment or social unpleasantness, otherwise, the mother’s wish would always prevail at the expense of other interests.

(vi)

Cultural and religious factors. The conception and concealed pregnancy may give rise to particular difficulties in some cultural and religious contexts. These may enhance the risks of notification, but they may also mean that the possibility of maintaining the birth tie through a family placement is of particular importance for the child.

(vii)

The availability and durability of the confidential information. Notification can only take place if there is someone to notify. In cases where a mother declines to identify a father, she may face persuasion, if that is thought appropriate, but she cannot be coerced. In some cases, the available information may mean that the father is identifiable, and maternal relatives may also be identifiable. The extent to which identifying information is pursued is a matter of judgment. Conversely, there will be cases where it is necessary to consider whether any confidentiality is likely to endure. In the modern world, secrets are increasingly difficult to keep and the consequences, particularly for the child and any prospective adopters, of the child’s existence being concealed but becoming known to family members later on, sometimes as a result of disclosure by the person seeking confidentiality, should be borne in mind.

(viii)

The impact of delay. A decision to apply to court and thereafter any decision to notify will inevitably postpone, to some extent, the time when the child’s permanent placement can be confirmed. In most cases, the importance of the issues means that the delay cannot be a predominant factor. There may, however, be circumstances where delay would have particularly damaging consequences for the mother or for the child; for example, it would undoubtedly need to be taken into account if it would lead to the withdrawal of the child's established carers or to the loss of an especially suitable adoptive placement.

(ix)

Any other relevant matters. The list of relevant factors is not closed. Mothers may have many reasons for wishing to maintain confidentiality, and there may be a wide range of implications for the child, the father and for other relatives. All relevant matters must be considered.

7.

It has rightly been said that the maintenance of confidentiality is exceptional, and highly exceptional where a father has parental responsibility or where there is family life under Article 8. However, exceptionality is not in itself a test or a short cut; rather it is a reflection of the fact that the profound significance of adoption for the child and considerations of fairness to others means that the balance will often fall in favour of notification, but the decision on whether confidentiality should be maintained can only be made by striking a fair balance between the factors that are present in the individual case”.

I have been provided with detailed analyses of the relevant factors in this case from both the social worker and the Children’s Guardian, and they have both reached the same conclusion which is that the wishes of the parents that their extended families should not be told of YV’s birth should not override the other factors pointing in favour of notification in this case. With respect to both the social worker and the Guardian, I am not going to repeat the entirety of their careful analyses in this judgment, but I make clear, I have read those documents and have taken the totality of their analyses into account. However, the following points appear to me to be of particular relevance.

Firstly, YV’s own Article 8 rights. None of the extended family in this case has an established family life with YV. However, YV’s own rights mean that there should be an exploration as to whether there is somebody in their extended family who could provide care for them.

Second, the substance of the family relationships. There is some conflict in the evidence here, and little is known of the relationships within the wider family. The parents have themselves been in a relationship since 2019, and it appears they have undergone a religious marriage. Nonetheless, it equally appears that the mother’s family is hostile to the relationship, and concern has been expressed by the mother that her family might be aggressive towards her if the family were aware of YV.

In terms of the likelihood of a family placement as a realistic alternative to adoption, it is difficult to say on the evidence at present. It appears that the families could be traced. It is unclear also how accurate the information that has been provided by the parents to the Local Authority is. The maternal grandmother certainly is of an age where she could be considered as a potential carer for YV, although that might be more unlikely if her health is poor, as the mother has asserted. The paternal grandmother is older, but, for example, the paternal aunt may be a suitable carer. No indications have been provided of any concern regarding the ability of the paternal grandmother or aunt to care for YV. The difficulties that have been identified in this case by the parents appear to be linked to the paternal family’s financial situation. Certainly, there is no evidence that there would be a real risk of harm to the parents if the families were notified, whilst it appears that there are family members who might be able to care for YV. These factors clearly point towards notification in this case, so that that option of a family carer can be explored.

In terms of the physical, psychological and social impact on the mother and others of notification, the parents are aged in their late 20s, I think, 26 and 27, and were previously living independently in Kazakhstan. Theirs is a long-term relationship, and it appears they have undergone a religious marriage. It may well be that they are likely to remain in a relationship even if notification takes place. The mother has expressed some concerns regarding what might happen if her family are notified. She says she does not know what would happen, but they may be aggressive. The father does not think his mother would be happy and reports a previous threat when the mother’s family found out about their relationship. However, although both parents have been given ample opportunities to speak about this case with the Local Authority through independent solicitors, neither has filed a statement nor expanded on the limited reasons that they have provided why notification should not take place.

I am required to consider cultural and religious factors. Both parents are, I believe, Muslims, although there is a suggestion in the Guardian’s report that the father is from a Christian background. It is unclear whether there is any risk of ostracism in this case but I note that the evidence from the Kazakh lawyer is that children born out of wedlock are not treated differently by the State and that whilst traditional views exist in more rural, conservative parts of the country, attitudes to children born out of wedlock have become more accepting in urban areas. However, in any event, I do observe this appears to be a case where a religious marriage has taken place. Certainly, I do not consider this to be a case where the most severe consequences that were identified by Jackson LJ at paragraph 89(6)(v) in the Re A, B and C case are likely to come to pass. At most, it seems to be more likely at the other end of the spectrum, of perhaps short-term difficulties or embarrassment for the parents if notification occurs.

A further factor I must consider is confidentiality. This may be a case where confidentiality of information could be maintained for a period, although that would depend entirely on the parents, about whom I know relatively little. However, the information that is available to the Local Authority means that it is likely to be possible for YV, when they are older, to trace their parents and other members of their birth family, and I agree with the analysis of both the Guardian and the Local Authority that it may be better for the child for contact to be made now when professional support is available, and the option of being cared for by their family can be explored.

Delay. There has been some delay in this case. I make no criticism whatsoever of the Local Authority. However, the delay has occurred, and YV is now 11 months old. Clearly, any approach that is now made to their extended family needs to take place in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, the position here is not such that the option of a family placement should not be explored, and I accept the submission that it is likely to be important for YV when they are older that this, as an option, was properly explored.

Therefore, considering all the factors here, including the position of the parents, YV’s welfare, and taking into account the careful analyses of both the Children’s Guardian and the social worker, I am satisfied that this is a case where notification of relatives should not be dispensed with and I will make the declaration that it is appropriate to notify the extended family of YV’s birth with a view to exploring the possibility of a placement with family members. I agree that the notification should take place expeditiously, but the parents should be given an opportunity to break the news to the extended family before the Local Authority do so. In terms of the notification of the Kazakh Authorities, Ms Brown’s position statement took me to the case of The Prospective Adopters v The Mother & Another [2021] EWHC 91 (Fam) and the decision of Morgan J, in that case. I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the Kazakh Authorities should be notified of this case and of the Local Authority’s plans for YV.

The Local Authority and the Children’s Guardian have proposed this morning that an opportunity is given for the Kazakh Authority to make any observations that they may wish to make in relation to what is proposed in relation to YV. It may be that the Kazakh Authorities have views on the adoption of YV who, although born in this jurisdiction and lacking any Kazakh identification documents, is, nonetheless, the child of two Kazakh parents. It seems to me that it is appropriate that they should be notified and given an opportunity to make such representations, as any, if they want to make in relation to this case.

I will, therefore, list this matter for a further hearing on 3 June, and I will seek permission to reserve the matter to myself as, having given this judgment, I consider that all parties would be assisted by their being judicial continuity on the next occasion.