X (A Child), Re

For the step-parent adoption gateway in section 42(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the child must have had a genuine home with the applicant throughout the six months before the application. A flexible and purposive construction is appropriate, and boarding-school periods may be disregarded. Financial provision, parental responsibility and frequent remote contact do not by themselves establish the required home. Welfare considerations cannot justify stretching the gateway beyond the statutory language.

AB applied to adopt X, the 15-year-old daughter of his partner, BC. X had lived internationally and attended boarding school abroad. The application raised questions concerning AB’s domicile, the location of the home, whether X had had her home with AB throughout the six months preceding the application, and whether sufficient opportunities existed for the local authority to see them together in a home environment.

The domicile and local-authority-location issues were conceded. The central issue was whether limited physical co-residence, together with financial responsibility and regular remote contact, satisfied section 42(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

1. Application dismissed at the gateway stage. AB failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that X had had her home with him at all times during the six months preceding the application, as required by section 42(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
2. The statutory requirement is fact-sensitive and should receive a flexible, purposive construction. Periods spent at boarding school may be disregarded. Nevertheless, section 42 requires sufficient time living together in a home environment to enable the court to assess whether the proposed adoption is likely to succeed.
3. The evidence showed only very limited physical time together. AB’s financial and moral responsibility, and regular telephone, email and text contact, did not equate to X having her home with him. The focus could not be reduced to the psychological relationship or parental involvement from afar.
4. The family’s wider international arrangements showed intermittent stays in different locations. Even cumulatively, those stays did not establish the statutory home requirement. The welfare benefits of adoption, although powerful, could not alter the statutory gateway or render it meaningless.
5. A further application could be made if the factual foundation later changed. Since section 42(3) was not satisfied, it was unnecessary to determine the section 42(7) questions. The judge indicated that, had section 42(3) been met, more detailed proposals would have been required concerning the assessment.

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