Mother who gave birth after one-night stand wins right to keep baby secret from the father

In a landmark decision, three Appeal Court judges agreed that the 20-year-old single mother has "the ultimate veto" over whom should be told about the child, who is being put up for adoption.

Describing the case as "on any view extraordinary", Lord Justice Thorpe ruled there was no justification for "breaking open the mother's secret".

And Lady Justice Arden said this was not a violation of the father's rights to family life under the Human Rights Act because he had no rights to be violated.

The mother, who cannot be identified by order of the court, had kept her pregnancy hidden from her family, colleagues and the father.

She gave birth five months ago and left the baby girl, known only as E, in hospital shortly afterwards.

When she asked for the child to be put up for adoption, a county court ordered that her parents and the father should be told to give them the opportunity to apply to adopt.

But yesterday, the judges decided the father had no rights over the child, who is now in foster care, because "he was only a one-night stand".

And they banned the local authority and guardian from taking any steps to identify him or telling him about his daughter.

There was also an order barring council staff from introducing the girl to any of the mother's family to assess them as potential carers.

The court had been told the family learned about the child after the council made inquiries.

Lord Justice Thorpe said he accepted "the importance of respecting the choice of a young mother who found herself in a terrible dilemma".

The mother's QC had told the judges that she was 19 when she became pregnant and did not realise until a late stage.

She lived on her own, pursuing a career and did not believe she could look after the child.

The QC added: "This girl was unable to bring herself to tell her parents she was pregnant and drove herself to hospital in the dead of night to have the child.

"She is a perfectly ordinary girl in a job she loves, who is living her own life. It is highly significant that she has not felt able to tell anyone, even her siblings. That should be taken into account by the court."

The judges heard that the pregnancy resulted from a "one-night stand" with a colleague while both were "on the rebound having broken up with long-term partners".

"He is now back with his fiancee, continuing with that relationship and he has no idea she has given birth to his or any other child."

She said the young mother was "absolutely clear" that she did not want anyone to know who the father was.

The court was told the mother was adamant that E should not go to her grandparents, who are divorced, or to the father.

Lady Justice Arden said: "He was only a one-night stand and he has no family life with E or the mother, entitling him to the guarantee of respect for that family life under Article 8 [of the Human Rights Convention].

"There is no basis for supposing that he could provide a home for E. . . The prospects of him being a long-term carer are too intangible to justify a delay in making a placement for E."

Lord Justice Thorpe added: "The law improves the opportunity of the child of anonymous birth to search out its biological origin.

"However, the ultimate veto remains with the mother. Registers of information are in place to lead the searching child to the mother's door but the child has no right of entry if the mother, despite counselling, refuses to unlock it."

The judges said the 2002 Adoption and Children Act - which imposes a duty to serve the best interests of the child - did not lead to a requirement to tell the father.

But John Baker, of the charity Families Need Fathers, said: "This treats the child as the property of the mother, to be disposed of as she sees fit."

He added: "It is time that the children's right to both parents was put on a proper statutory footing. This decision must be taken to the House of Lords."

Former Home Secretary David Blunkett, a champion of fathers' rights after his paternity case over his son by Kimberly Quinn, said: "We as a society should not be expected to be the father and mother of the child when at least one of them has been excluded from accepting responsibility.

"Perhaps the judiciary should take a collection to pay for the arrangements for care and subsequent adoption, because obviously someone pays in such circumstances."