The withholding of information within Adoption proceedings: A judgement

This Judgement (Re: D (Adoption: Notification of Husband and Relatives) [2026] EWHC 1289 (Fam) considers the matter of Notification to relatives in an adoption matter.  It was a High Court Family Division matter involving a six-month-old baby, referred to as D. The child’s mother wished to place D for adoption without informing her husband, her relatives, or the biological father of the child. The local authority sought authorisation under the court's inherent jurisdiction to bypass the standard requirement of notifying these third parties about the child’s birth and the impending adoption. The case was heard on 22 April 2026 by Deputy High Court Judge Catherine Cowton KC, who delivered the judgment on 13 May 2026.

The mother fled Country Z in early 2024 following an arrest at a protest, three-days of detention, and a number of serious assaults, including rapes, by state officials. She successfully obtained asylum in the UK in 2025. Her husband, whom she married in 2022, remained in Country Z with hopes in future to relocate to the UK.

In early 2025, the mother attended a social gathering where she suspects her drink was drugged. Although she has no recollection of the night, she subsequently found out she was pregnant. She did not consent to sexual intercourse and could not identify the biological father. Experiencing denial throughout the pregnancy, she sought no prenatal care until she entered labour in late 2025. Immediately after birth, D entered foster care under a voluntary arrangement. The infant was then placed with prospective adopters, chosen with the mother's input to ensure alignment with D's cultural heritage.

The mother had concealed D’s birth from her husband, parents, siblings, and extended family. She feared that deep-rooted cultural and religious stigmas within her community would cause her husband to divorce and abandon both her and the child. Rather than receiving compassion for the assault, she anticipates being held responsible for an extramarital relationship. Additionally, she worried about the social dishonour brought upon her small village community in Country Z, which could damage her siblings' marriage options and severely impact her parents' health. The mother indicated she would experience suicidal ideation if the court ordered disclosure to her family.

Because D was born during the marriage, the mother's husband legally held parental responsibility under section 2(1) of the Children Act 1989, even though he was not the biological father. To finalise the adoption, this status must eventually be addressed via a Declaration of Non-parentage or by overriding his consent. Evaluating the request, the court relied on the framework established in Re A, B & C [2020] EWCA Civ 41. The judge balanced key factors such as legal parental responsibility, Article 8 privacy rights, the depth of existing relationships, the feasibility of a family placement, the consequences of disclosure, religious and cultural elements, confidentiality, and potential delays.

The High Court authorised the local authority to withhold information regarding D and the adoption plans from the mother’s husband, his relatives, the maternal parents and siblings, the wider family, and the unidentified biological father. Judge Catherine Cowton KC determined that disclosure would inflict profound psychological and social trauma on the mother. Furthermore, there was no viable option for a family placement, and the resulting cultural stigma would negatively impact both D and the maternal family. The court commended the mother's resilience and her intent to shield D from community rejection by securing a supportive future through adoption.