Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 2 nd March 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives subsequently
The court is concerned with C , a nine month old baby born on 24 th May 2022. The application before the Court is brought by A Local Authority �(LA) under the inherent jurisdiction for the Court to determine whether C's wider maternal and paternal family should be notified of her birth and consulted on the plan for adoption.
C's mother is B; her father is D. Father is aware of C's birth and of these proceedings. He does not have and does not seek to have parental responsibility. He does not wish to participate in the proceedings. As a consequence, he has not attended this hearing and has not made any representations.
I am grateful to counsel for their assistance with this delicate application, Patrick Paisley for the LA; Chris Miller for mother and Sam Whittam for the child.
The LA first became involved with C on birth on 24 th May 2022. Mother had concealed her pregnancy, driven herself to hospital to give birth and indicated to midwives that she did not wish to care for C. Upon discharge from hospital, C was placed in foster care where she remains. Mother has had seven sessions of supervised contact, the last being on 18 th August 2022. Father has been given opportunities to see C face to face but has not taken them.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.