In re P (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Notice to Father without Parental Responsibility) - Viewing document

Prepared for Unknown User by ICLR

The WLR Daily case summaries

[2019] WLR(D) 158

Family Court

In re P (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Notice to Father without Parental Responsibility)

[2019] EWFC 13

2019 Feb 18; March 11

Judge Clifford Bellamy sitting as a High Court judge

Children— Care proceedings— — Notification of proceedings to birth parent without parental responsibility— Putative father convicted of offences of sexual exploitation with respect to birth mother — Local authority applying for permission not to notify putative father of proceedings— Whether putative father having family ties to child so as to engage protection of Convention right to respect for family life— Whether local authority required to apply for permission not to notify putative father— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, arts 6, 8 — FPR Pt 12, Practice Direction 12C, para 3.1

The local authority had obtained a final care order in respect of a teenage pregnant girl who was at high risk of sexual harm, having been groomed and sexually exploited. When the baby was born the local authority issued care proceedings and obtained an interim care order in respect of her. The local authority wished to be relieved of its responsibility, under paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 12C supplementing FPR Pt 12, to notify the putative father of the proceedings, in circumstances where he was serving a custodial sentence for offences relating to his sexual relationship with the birth mother, and he had never had contact with and did not have parental responsibility for the baby. The local authority therefore applied to the court for the requirement to serve Form C6A upon him to be disapplied.

On the application—

Held, application granted. (1) For the purposes of article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to respect for family life), the putative father had never had de facto family life with the baby and article 6 (right to a fair trial) was not engaged. In the circumstances it would be contrary to the baby’s welfare interests for the putative father to be given notice of the care proceedings (para 27).

In re X (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Notice to Father without Parental Responsibility) [2017] 4 WLR 110 applied.

(2) Although it was for the court to decide whether the requirements of paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 12C should be disapplied, in any particular case the court could only make that decision if the local authority brought the matter before the court. On a proper reading of the provision it was open to a local authority, without reference to the court, to serve Form C6A on a person believed to be the father of a baby born as a result of child sexual exploitation and the court had no power to impose a requirement that in every such case a local authority had to apply to disapply the requirement. Whether there should be such a requirement was an issue for the Family Procedure Rule Committee and not for the court. However, as a matter of good practice there was an expectation that in every care case relating to a child born as a result of child sexual exploitation the relevant local authority should apply to the court for the requirement to send Form C6A to the person believed to be the father of the child to be disapplied. That there was such an expectation would make it clear that in every such case the decision was of such importance that it should normally be taken by the court and not by the local authority (paras 24–26).

Anthony Finch for the local authority.

Christopher Gabb, solicitor for the birth mother.

Kerry Cockayne for the baby, by the children’s guardian.

Jeanette Burn, Barrister