M v F & Ors

M v F & Ors

The appeal was dismissed because M failed to provide objective or expert evidence of a compelling risk to justify withholding BA's existence from F. The evidence of risk was speculative and did not meet the high threshold of exceptionality required to override F's fundamental rights to family life and participation in proceedings. The court reaffirmed that non-disclosure is only justified in truly exceptional circumstances, not established here.

Parties
Appellant: M; 1st Respondent: F; 2nd Respondent: H (A Local Authority); 3rd Respondent: BA (By his Guardian); Advocate for the Court: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (mostyn J), Family Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adoption, Parental Responsibility, Non Disclosure of Proceedings, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Human Rights Adoption Parental Responsibility Non Disclosure of Proceedings Article 6 ECHR Article 8 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Appellant

F

1st Respondent

H (A Local Authority)

2nd Respondent

BA (By his Guardian)

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

Advocate for the Court

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (mostyn J), Family Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the father (F) should be denied all knowledge of the birth and existence of his child (BA) and excluded from care and adoption proceedings.
  2. 2 What threshold of risk or exceptionality is required to justify withholding such information from a parent with parental responsibility.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because M failed to provide objective or expert evidence of a compelling risk to justify withholding BA's existence from F. The evidence of risk was speculative and did not meet the high threshold of exceptionality required to override F's fundamental rights to family life and participation in proceedings. The court reaffirmed that non-disclosure is only justified in truly exceptional circumstances, not established here.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declarations sought by M refused
  • No order for non-disclosure; F to be informed and participate in proceedings