Local Authority v M & Anor

A foreign adoption valid under the law of the country in which it was made may be recognised in English law, with the consequence that parental responsibility and statutory parenthood are determined by that adoption. Natural parents retain powerful interests in maintaining or restoring family life, but the child’s welfare remains decisive. A child should be returned to natural parents only where that is consistent with the child’s best interests. Privately commissioned home study reports prepared for inter-country adoptions may constitute criminal arrangements for adoption and unlawful payment-related conduct under the Adoption Act 1976. Local authorities must give foreign courts and agencies clear, explicit information about the unlawfulness of such reports and any known concerns about prospective adopters.

The local authority sought an order freeing M for adoption under section 18 of the Adoption Act 1976. M had been born in the United States, adopted there by C and D, and brought to England. Following C’s suicide and D’s abandonment of M, M was voluntarily accommodated and placed with foster carers.

M’s birth parents sought her return. The court considered the recognition and effect of the Texas adoption, the status of the birth parents and adoptive father, the quality and legality of the inter-country adoption assessments, and whether returning M to her birth parents would serve her welfare.

1. Status and parenthood. The Texas decree of adoption was valid under Texas law and recognised as valid in English law. It terminated the parental rights previously vested in the birth parents and vested parental rights in C and D. D was therefore the only person with parental responsibility for M and the only statutory parent for section 18 of the Adoption Act 1976. The birth parents were not parents, and B was not a father, for the purposes of section 18.
2. Welfare and family life. The law of nature, domestic law and article 8 of the European Convention require that, other things being equal, children should live with and be brought up by their natural parents. That principle does not determine the outcome where the child’s welfare points elsewhere. M’s best interests required consideration of her powerful interest in being raised by her birth family in the country of her birth, together with the evidence that she was settled in England and would face significant emotional and possible physical harm if returned.
3. The court accepted the assessment that the birth parents lacked sufficient warmth, empathy and insight, and that domestic violence, daily aggression, environmental dangers and the proposed disruption of M’s settled placement created unacceptable risks. The positive features of return did not outweigh those risks. M needed permanency without delay, and the order freeing her for adoption was made forthwith.
4. Home study reports. The court expressly agreed with the reasoning and conclusions in Re C (Adoption: Legality), namely that a person preparing a privately commissioned home study report for an overseas adoption makes arrangements facilitating adoption and commits offences under sections 11 and 57 of the Adoption Act 1976. Section 72(3A), introduced by the Adoption (Inter-Country Aspects) Act 1999, made the position explicit for assessments of suitability to adopt a child resident outside the British Islands. Equivalent provisions were enacted in the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
5. A local authority in a similar position must tell the foreign court and agencies, in clear and unequivocal terms, that unlawful home study reports constitute criminal conduct and must disclose information suggesting that prospective adopters are unsuitable. The required approach is plain speaking rather than obliquity.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.