PD v MD

A foreign adoption made under the law of the adopters’ domicile may be recognised under the common law where the adoption validly creates the status of parent and child and the child was resident in that country. Recognition should generally be refused on public policy grounds only in exceptional cases. The court must distinguish recognition of the status itself from giving effect to particular consequences of the adoption. The child’s welfare throughout life is the paramount consideration in an adoption decision. On the facts, valid Indian adoptions were recognised under section 66(1)(e) and Chapter 4 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Mr and Mrs D, Indian citizens domiciled in India, obtained domestic adoption orders in Mumbai in respect of two children under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. The orders were not automatically recognised in England and Wales as Convention adoptions or overseas adoptions. The applicants sought declarations recognising them under the common law, within section 66(1)(e) and Chapter 4 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

The application was made so that the family’s legal relationship would be recognised in England and Wales, including for immigration purposes. The central issues were whether the Indian orders validly created the status of parent and child, whether recognition would offend public policy, and what weight should be given to the children’s welfare and the surrounding immigration circumstances.

1. The court granted declarations that the Mumbai adoption orders concerning the two children were recognised as adoptions in England and Wales within section 66(1)(e) and Chapter 4 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (para 28).

2. Under the common law, foreign adoption orders may be recognised where the status was validly created under the law of the adopters’ domicile and the circumstances justify recognition. The court applied the principle stated in Re Valentine’s Settlement [2 All ER 226], including the importance of comity and the analogy with the jurisdiction claimed by England and Wales for its own adoption orders (para 14).

3. Public policy is a narrow control on recognition of the status itself. The court should be slow to refuse recognition merely because the foreign adoption requirements differ from English requirements. Recognition of status must be distinguished from giving effect to particular consequences of that status, which may raise separate public policy questions (para 15).

4. The Indian adoption procedures were rigorous, child-centred and legally valid under Indian law. The children had been abandoned, the adoptions were irrevocable, and the procedures included assessment, safeguards and post-adoption monitoring. There was no public policy reason to refuse recognition (paras 3–6, 9, 23–28).

5. The court considered the statutory framework. Convention adoptions and designated overseas adoptions receive automatic recognition under the Act, while section 66(1)(e) preserves recognition under common law for other foreign adoptions. Recognition did not itself alter the children’s nationality and did not guarantee immigration leave. The immigration consequences were therefore distinct from the recognition of status (paras 11–12, 17–19).

6. The children’s welfare supported recognition. It was in their best interests to remain with the applicants, to have the applicants’ parental responsibility recognised, and to preserve the established family relationship (paras 13, 24–28).

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