Adoption of a relinquished baby contested by birth father.
Harris, Alexandra Conroy
Q (A child) [2011]
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Munby, Black & Kitchin LLJ
21 December 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 1610
Q's parents were both Muslims but came from different
communities. Her father was married to a woman in his country of origin
and her mother was living at home when Q was conceived. M was terrified
of the consequences for her and for the baby if her father found out
about the relationship and was clear that she would be unable to keep
the baby. Q was born in hospital and M was discharged shortly
afterwards. She gave her written consent to placement and to adoption
and Q was placed with prospective adopters in December 2010. F knew
about the pregnancy, but claimed that M told him that the baby had died.
At the beginning of 2011 he contacted social services and indicated that
he wished to apply for a residence order in respect of Q. An adoption
application was issued in March and the local authority applied for
directions in respect of F. Evidence was given from the police which
suggested that there was a high risk to Q and to M if the community
found out about Q's birth. The judge ordered F not to disclose any
information about Q or to contact M's family. He was told that the
baby was well and had been placed for adoption. He applied for a
residence order, intending Q to be brought up with the child of his
marriage, born a few months after Q. Reports were filed which showed
that F and his wife were caring well for their own baby, and that Q had
settled well and attached to her adopters. The local authority supported
the adopters' application, the children's guardian supported
F. The judge at first instance found that there was a risk that Q would
not be able to transfer her attachment to F and his wife, and there was
a significant risk that placing Q with her father would enable the
community to put two and two together and could provoke M's father
to take action to preserve the family honour. There were also concerns
raised about F's understanding of Q's emotional needs and his
ability to meet them. The court made an adoption order with a plan for
letterbox contact only. F appealed, claiming that he had a private and
family life with Q that required protection; that the judge should have
adjourned for a psychiatric report to inform her decision, especially as
there was a difference in opinion between the guardian and the social
worker; and that the judge should have heard evidence from a cultural
expert.
Held
The issue of whether F had a private or family life with Q did not
need to be decided as the judge had actually applied the test that she
would have had to apply if F had had parental responsibility - did
Q's welfare require her adoption? The judge had weighed the facts
carefully and come to the 'unimpeachable' findings that the
physical and emotional risks to Q of moving to F's family were such
that her welfare required adoption by the couple with whom she was
currently placed.
Alexandra Conroy Harris, BAAF's Legal Consultant, prepared
these notes