Only one parent need be dead if the claimant can show that
and
“Parent” includes an adoptive parent
There is no legal definition of “whereabouts” or
“reasonable efforts”. The terms should be given their
normal everyday meaning.
This should be taken to mean knowledge of a person’s residence, employment, or place of attendance by habit (such as a public house).
Knowledge of a person’s residence will always mean residential address, which could include temporary accommodation (hostel or caravan), or a street or block of flats where the number is not known, but the claimant is aware of the person’s physical appearance.
Knowledge of a person’s employment would include any
precise place of employment, such as a particular factory, shop,
office or market stall.
General knowledge of a person’s employment may also
demonstrate knowledge of a missing person’s whereabouts. If
the person works for the armed forces, or a particular travel
company, the claimant could reasonably expect to make contact with
them.
Knowledge only of a person’s skill, for example
bricklayer, market trader, oil rig worker, would not in itself
demonstrate knowledge of a person’s whereabouts.
Knowledge of this should be taken to mean that if the claimant
knows that the missing person will be in a particular place, at
regular intervals, when contact could reasonably be made, this
would constitute knowledge of whereabouts.
The place of attendance should be somewhere that person to
person contact can reasonably be made. It would not include places
where it would be difficult to contact one person in a large crowd.
“Attendance by habit” implies that a person must
be in such a place at regular, relatively short intervals. Where
intervals of more than 5 weeks occur, this would not constitute
attendance by habit.
Knowledge that a person attended a certain team’s
football matches, shopped at a certain shopping centre, or had
holidays in the same resort each year would not be sufficient to
demonstrate knowledge of whereabouts.
If the claimant knows that a missing person visits a specific
person at the same address every few weeks, or regularly attends a
specific church on a weekly or monthly basis, this would constitute
knowledge of whereabouts.
If the claimant discovers the whereabouts of the surviving parent and the parent then disappears, the claimant is still treated as having discovered the whereabouts of the surviving parent. It is not necessary to consider what efforts the claimant had made to discover the whereabouts of the surviving parent.
As a minimum, the claimant is required to show that they have
attempted to contact the last known address, family and friends of
the surviving parent.
If the claimant has done this, or has valid reasons why they
have not, for example they do not know the last address, family or
friends, or they have good reason for not making contact, it can be
accepted that reasonable efforts have been made.
If the claimant can show that there is a danger of harm or undue distress being caused to either them or the child if they attempt to find the surviving parents then they will be treated as having made reasonable efforts. For example, the surviving parent could
or
